Why would Rees-Mogg think highly of an Old Etonian who plays at being posh and whose apparently boundless self-confidence meant he kept failing upwards?
Why would Rees-Mogg think highly of an Old Etonian who plays at being posh and whose apparently boundless self-confidence meant he kept failing upwards?
The jealous are troublesome to others, but a torment to themselves. ...
What point are you making here?
Interestingly, it's a quote from the Quaker, William Penn, who founded Pennsylvania USA.
His *Holy Experiment* would not come amiss in the UK right now:
Penn decided to make this Quaker colony of Pennsylvania a haven for people of all religions and national backgrounds. This colony was to become a “Holy Experiment” in which people would live together in peace.
Not that *Sir Jacob* and his cronies would be in favour, I fear...
The Unicorns are still being held at the border, as they have so far failed to confirm that they are imbued with True British Values™ - no doubt they will be sent to Rwanda in due course.
Personally I'm amazed that anyone would need to posit jealousy as a reason to dislike the honourable member for the 18th Century. There are so many other reasons.
Personally I'm amazed that anyone would need to posit jealousy as a reason to dislike the honourable member for the 18th Century. There are so many other reasons.
I can't imagine anyone being jealous of such a foul, arrogant, self centered person.
Personally I'm amazed that anyone would need to posit jealousy as a reason to dislike the honourable member for the 18th Century. There are so many other reasons.
I can't imagine anyone being jealous of such a foul, arrogant, self centered person.
Quite.
I still don't see the point of Telford's quotation from William Penn, though I do appreciate that he (Telford) doesn't like us criticising and lampooning *Sir Jacob*.
Meanwhile, another own goal by the Zombies of Wastemonster:
You can have a FREE portrait of the King (O! Frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!) if you're an Anglican church (who really should have no King except Jesus), but not if you're a mosque...
I still don't see the point of Telford's quotation from William Penn, though I do appreciate that he (Telford) doesn't like us criticising and lampooning *Sir Jacob*.
Strangely this kind of performative forelock tugging rarely applies to any other title.
Personally I'm amazed that anyone would need to posit jealousy as a reason to dislike the honourable member for the 18th Century. There are so many other reasons.
I can't imagine anyone being jealous of such a foul, arrogant, self centered person.
Quite.
I still don't see the point of Telford's quotation from William Penn, though I do appreciate that he (Telford) doesn't like us criticising and lampooning *Sir Jacob*.
Meanwhile, another own goal by the Zombies of Wastemonster:
You can have a FREE portrait of the King (O! Frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!) if you're an Anglican church (who really should have no King except Jesus), but not if you're a mosque...
CofE, I think, rather than Anglican, being that that is the only one what are by law established. CinW and SEC are just going to have to cope without.
Personally I'm amazed that anyone would need to posit jealousy as a reason to dislike the honourable member for the 18th Century. There are so many other reasons.
I can't imagine anyone being jealous of such a foul, arrogant, self centered person.
Quite.
I still don't see the point of Telford's quotation from William Penn, though I do appreciate that he (Telford) doesn't like us criticising and lampooning *Sir Jacob*.
Meanwhile, another own goal by the Zombies of Wastemonster:
You can have a FREE portrait of the King (O! Frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!) if you're an Anglican church (who really should have no King except Jesus), but not if you're a mosque...
CofE, I think, rather than Anglican, being that that is the only one what are by law established. CinW and SEC are just going to have to cope without.
You're quite right, of course, and I weep for those benighted churches in Scotland and Wales who are going to be deprived of this most magnanimous privilege.
(IRONY)
I'm not sure if Our Place even has a picture of the late Queen anywhere - there's none in the church, but there might be one in the Vestry/Sacristy.
FatherInCharge is a devout Royalist, so I wouldn't be surprised if the photo of Chuck the Admiral appeared soon...
Personally I'm amazed that anyone would need to posit jealousy as a reason to dislike the honourable member for the 18th Century. There are so many other reasons.
I can't imagine anyone being jealous of such a foul, arrogant, self centered person.
Quite.
I still don't see the point of Telford's quotation from William Penn, though I do appreciate that he (Telford) doesn't like us criticising and lampooning *Sir Jacob*.
Meanwhile, another own goal by the Zombies of Wastemonster:
You can have a FREE portrait of the King (O! Frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!) if you're an Anglican church (who really should have no King except Jesus), but not if you're a mosque...
CofE, I think, rather than Anglican, being that that is the only one what are by law established. CinW and SEC are just going to have to cope without.
There may be a strain in the SEC that is not entirely sure that the UK monarchy outlived Cardinal Henry Stuart, King Henry IX and I.
I’ve met many (well, more than 10) who claim their allegiance lies with the current Stuart claimant but must confess I’ve not come across any - though I’m sure they must be out there - who think the line died out with Cardinal Stuart.
Tbh the people obsessed with that sort of thing always struck me as a particularly Scottish equivalent of the CofE (and, weirdly, TEC*) fringe who really care about Charles I being a saint!
*if you look at the social media contributions to the St Charles King and Martyr movement it always surprises me how American it is.
I was being sort of ironic. The SEC was originally a Jacobite organisation and is still proud of that, but they were the first to ordain bishops in the American Episcopalian Church who couldn't swear allegiance to the King after the Revolution, and they're not terribly monarchically minded now. Hence my joke about when the SEC thinks the legitimate succession stopped.
There may be a strain in the SEC that is not entirely sure that the UK monarchy outlived Cardinal Henry Stuart, King Henry IX and I.
Officially the non-juring position died more or less with Charles Edward Stuart, as the Scottish Bishops realised that allegiance to a Roman Catholic cardinal was not really viable and the last non-jurors retired to allow those willing to take the oath of allegiance to the Hanoverian kings to take over.
You can have a FREE portrait of the King (O! Frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!) if you're an Anglican church (who really should have no King except Jesus), but not if you're a mosque...
Given that King Charles is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and as far as I know has no such connection to any mosques (or temples, or synagogues, or madrassas), I fail to see how that’s particularly controversial. I’m sure Roman Catholic Churches get offered free portraits of each new Pope as well, but nobody kicks up a fuss about the Zoroastrians being denied such a privilege.
You can have a FREE portrait of the King (O! Frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!) if you're an Anglican church (who really should have no King except Jesus), but not if you're a mosque...
Given that King Charles is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and as far as I know has no such connection to any mosques (or temples, or synagogues, or madrassas), I fail to see how that’s particularly controversial. I’m sure Roman Catholic Churches get offered free portraits of each new Pope as well, but nobody kicks up a fuss about the Zoroastrians being denied such a privilege.
Nobody's spending public money on portraits of the Pope.
You can have a FREE portrait of the King (O! Frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!) if you're an Anglican church (who really should have no King except Jesus), but not if you're a mosque...
Given that King Charles is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and as far as I know has no such connection to any mosques (or temples, or synagogues, or madrassas), I fail to see how that’s particularly controversial. I’m sure Roman Catholic Churches get offered free portraits of each new Pope as well, but nobody kicks up a fuss about the Zoroastrians being denied such a privilege.
Nobody's spending public money on portraits of the Pope.
Seems to me your quarrel is with Establishment rather than the government of the day.
You can have a FREE portrait of the King (O! Frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!) if you're an Anglican church (who really should have no King except Jesus), but not if you're a mosque...
Given that King Charles is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and as far as I know has no such connection to any mosques (or temples, or synagogues, or madrassas), I fail to see how that’s particularly controversial. I’m sure Roman Catholic Churches get offered free portraits of each new Pope as well, but nobody kicks up a fuss about the Zoroastrians being denied such a privilege.
Nobody's spending public money on portraits of the Pope.
Seems to me your quarrel is with Establishment rather than the government of the day.
It's the government of the day spending money on this pointless shite and expanding the list of potential recipients for no obvious reason other than to piss away public money.
I don’t think the Church in Wales or the Church of Scotland got any either. Wales is disestablished and Scotland is Presbyterian.
Spending public money is a different argument from the faith argument
Before he was king Charles used to say he wanted to not be 'Defender of The Faith' but 'Defender of Faith'.
So I think other faiths should have a free portrait -if they really want one!!?
Before he was king Charles used to say he wanted to not be 'Defender of The Faith' but 'Defender of Faith'.
So I think other faiths should have a free portrait -if they really want one!!?
So he did, and so they should!
But I agree that it is indeed a waste of public money. Perhaps the King himself should pay for them, and hand them out to those who desire them?
The government is going to need every penny it can get to compensate the victims of the infected blood scandal - £10billion:
And whose idea was it anyway? or is it something that's 'always done'?
Portraits of HM Queen Elizabeth II were everywhere, but it's a long time since the 1950s.
I think it's entirely reasonable that any civic organization (which I would interpret rather broadly) that wants a portrait of the King to hang should be able to have one. And whilst on one scale "a few million quid" is a lot of money, it's a rounding error on for example the NHS or the welfare budget, so comparisons between a portrait of the King and the wage of an unemployment office security guard aren't terribly relevant.
And whilst the King is of course Supreme Governor of the C of E, I think this is a portrait qua King rather than qua Supreme Governor, and I'd think that mosques and non-established churches should also be able to have a portrait if they want one.
I still think the obscenely wealthy King should provide his portrait free of charge to any civic or religious institution that wants one.
He's not my king, so I don't care if it costs him a few bob.
The portrait is of him in his role as head of state. It seems appropriate that his government provides such portraits, just like his government pays to put his face on the money.
I understand that you don't like the monarchy, but having the monarch as a national symbol is sort of a consequence of having a monarchy.
BF, Charles is your king whether you want it or not. He is not the Head of the C of E, but he is Supreme Governor. A governor, in a pieceof machinery, is the device that prevvents it over-revving and fying apart. Such, I take it, is Charles notional role in the C of E. At least, that's my take on the title. The Head of the c of E is, of course, Christ, not the A B of C.
Jonny Mercer managed to leak an email by accident https://archive.is/cMDHr he's been excised about veterans being able to use their ID cards to vote, and has this perception of the government's response.
"The cabinet minister complained that he had been trying to persuade No 10 to let veterans use their IDs at polling stations “for months without success”. He said he had found out the plans had been blocked by the prime minister’s special advisers because they could “open the floodgates” to allow students to use their cards too."
In a normal country this ought to lead to serious discussion as to how this proposal was explicitly designed and implemented as voter suppression.
Pedantic point: It is peers of the realm who do homage to the monarch (not to the House of Windsor). The rest of us are, constitutionally, subjects, though mention of that word will doubtess educe screams of rage hereabouts.
Pedantic point: It is peers of the realm who do homage to the monarch (not to the House of Windsor). The rest of us are, constitutionally, subjects, though mention of that word will doubtless educe screams of rage hereabouts.
No, fair point. Charles III is Great Britain's head of state, and I am a British citizen. I am therefore constitutionally a subject, but not a loyal or subservient one.
Pedantic point: It is peers of the realm who do homage to the monarch (not to the House of Windsor). The rest of us are, constitutionally, subjects, though mention of that word will doubtess educe screams of rage hereabouts.
That we are subjected to their rule is a matter for resigned sighs rather than rage, but I nonetheless salute your pedantry and rather declare that I do not swear allegiance to Charles Windsor, nor his heirs and successors, and do declare him No True King of Scots but a pretender to his majesty King Franz's throne (having a Jacobite day today).
In a normal country this ought to lead to serious discussion as to how this proposal was explicitly designed and implemented as voter suppression.
If you take the view that a robust id is required to ensure the sanctity of the electoral process (which I don't, because there's no evidence that that kind of electoral fraud is ever a problem, but I suppose you could think it philosophically a good thing for people to prove their identities in order to vote) then whether or not a particular id is acceptable should depend on how robustly that particular id is tied to the person's identity.
Do student ids have the same sort of robust tie to identity as a passport? When I was a student, I don't think they did, but that was a long time ago.
In a normal country this ought to lead to serious discussion as to how this proposal was explicitly designed and implemented as voter suppression.
If you take the view that a robust id is required to ensure the sanctity of the electoral process (which I don't, because there's no evidence that that kind of electoral fraud is ever a problem, but I suppose you could think it philosophically a good thing for people to prove their identities in order to vote) then whether or not a particular id is acceptable should depend on how robustly that particular id is tied to the person's identity.
Do student ids have the same sort of robust tie to identity as a passport? When I was a student, I don't think they did, but that was a long time ago.
I may be wrong but these days a student ID is more than just proving you are a student. My OU ID was a way into my details. It should be enough.
Pedantic point: It is peers of the realm who do homage to the monarch (not to the House of Windsor). The rest of us are, constitutionally, subjects, though mention of that word will doubtess educe screams of rage hereabouts.
That we are subjected to their rule is a matter for resigned sighs rather than rage, but I nonetheless salute your pedantry and rather declare that I do not swear allegiance to Charles Windsor, nor his heirs and successors, and do declare him No True King of Scots but a pretender to his majesty King Franz's throne (having a Jacobite day today).
Watch out. You'll be executed or transported to Barbados.
In a normal country this ought to lead to serious discussion as to how this proposal was explicitly designed and implemented as voter suppression.
If you take the view that a robust id is required to ensure the sanctity of the electoral process (which I don't, because there's no evidence that that kind of electoral fraud is ever a problem, but I suppose you could think it philosophically a good thing for people to prove their identities in order to vote) then whether or not a particular id is acceptable should depend on how robustly that particular id is tied to the person's identity.
Do student ids have the same sort of robust tie to identity as a passport? When I was a student, I don't think they did, but that was a long time ago.
I may be wrong but these days a student ID is more than just proving you are a student. My OU ID was a way into my details. It should be enough.
A student ID card would have a name and photo, and through either barcode or RFID allow access to university buildings (as appropriate), link to library account and the like. In many ways similar to a staff id card for most large places of business. It wouldn't include information like address or date of birth that a passport or driving license would include.
If for the sake of argument we assume that there is impersonation fraud at polling stations, then the question is "what level of id is required to prevent this?" Does it just need a name and photo? Or, does it also need the address of the voter to stop someone of the same name impersonating the voter? As the government has accepted forms of id that don't include address (eg: passports) then it appears that they accept that only the name and photo is needed. But, in terms of how "authoritative" that id needs to be the government appears to be inconsistent; they include government issued id (drivers license, passport, Scottish NEC etc), local authority issued id (blue badge, elderly persons bus pass etc), and PASS cards (various issuers). A lot of cards, such as student id, that are routinely used for proof of age and concessionary access to many places are not included. If the id just needs the name and photo then any card that has that and would be widely accepted should suffice - that would IMO include student cards, and things like id cards issued to tradespeople to prove their identity and credentials to home owners before entering to do work, any form of travel card etc.
But, as is universally acknowledged, there's no evidence of impersonation fraud being a problem in UK elections (or, indeed, elections in most functioning democracies - eg: EU nations, US, Canada, Japan etc ... I'd accept there may be problems of this sort in Russia or North Korea), and so voter id requirements are not designed to address fraud and have other purposes - with voter suppression being an obvious possibility.
Comments
What point are you making here?
Good gracious. That implies that a mendacious, morally bankrupt bin-bag full of custard was a role model for the party.
Come to think of it, that would explain a lot…
😂 😂
And of course Sunak only went to Winchester ...
Interestingly, it's a quote from the Quaker, William Penn, who founded Pennsylvania USA.
His *Holy Experiment* would not come amiss in the UK right now:
Penn decided to make this Quaker colony of Pennsylvania a haven for people of all religions and national backgrounds. This colony was to become a “Holy Experiment” in which people would live together in peace.
Not that *Sir Jacob* and his cronies would be in favour, I fear...
75cl is more than a pint so I am ok with this
Haven't you read all the nasty comments about Sir Jacob.?
Indeed. So the point you are implying is that the critique of JRM is out of jealousy?
I can imagine people being envious of his excessive wealth but few would, I suspect, consider being JRM a price worth paying for it.
I can't imagine anyone being jealous of such a foul, arrogant, self centered person.
Quite.
I still don't see the point of Telford's quotation from William Penn, though I do appreciate that he (Telford) doesn't like us criticising and lampooning *Sir Jacob*.
Meanwhile, another own goal by the Zombies of Wastemonster:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/17/extension-of-king-charles-free-portraits-scheme-upsets-unions-and-mosques
You can have a FREE portrait of the King (O! Frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!) if you're an Anglican church (who really should have no King except Jesus), but not if you're a mosque...
Strangely this kind of performative forelock tugging rarely applies to any other title.
CofE, I think, rather than Anglican, being that that is the only one what are by law established. CinW and SEC are just going to have to cope without.
You're quite right, of course, and I weep for those benighted churches in Scotland and Wales who are going to be deprived of this most magnanimous privilege.
(IRONY)
I'm not sure if Our Place even has a picture of the late Queen anywhere - there's none in the church, but there might be one in the Vestry/Sacristy.
FatherInCharge is a devout Royalist, so I wouldn't be surprised if the photo of Chuck the Admiral appeared soon...
I'm sure we'll manage somehow ... 🙃
I’ve met many (well, more than 10) who claim their allegiance lies with the current Stuart claimant but must confess I’ve not come across any - though I’m sure they must be out there - who think the line died out with Cardinal Stuart.
Tbh the people obsessed with that sort of thing always struck me as a particularly Scottish equivalent of the CofE (and, weirdly, TEC*) fringe who really care about Charles I being a saint!
*if you look at the social media contributions to the St Charles King and Martyr movement it always surprises me how American it is.
Officially the non-juring position died more or less with Charles Edward Stuart, as the Scottish Bishops realised that allegiance to a Roman Catholic cardinal was not really viable and the last non-jurors retired to allow those willing to take the oath of allegiance to the Hanoverian kings to take over.
Given that King Charles is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and as far as I know has no such connection to any mosques (or temples, or synagogues, or madrassas), I fail to see how that’s particularly controversial. I’m sure Roman Catholic Churches get offered free portraits of each new Pope as well, but nobody kicks up a fuss about the Zoroastrians being denied such a privilege.
Nobody's spending public money on portraits of the Pope.
Seems to me your quarrel is with Establishment rather than the government of the day.
It's the government of the day spending money on this pointless shite and expanding the list of potential recipients for no obvious reason other than to piss away public money.
Spending public money is a different argument from the faith argument
So I think other faiths should have a free portrait -if they really want one!!?
So he did, and so they should!
But I agree that it is indeed a waste of public money. Perhaps the King himself should pay for them, and hand them out to those who desire them?
The government is going to need every penny it can get to compensate the victims of the infected blood scandal - £10billion:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/20/infected-blood-inquiry-to-publish-final-report-in-seismic-moment-for-victims
None whatsoever. I don't give a fig for the King, or for what he wants.
Portraits of HM Queen Elizabeth II were everywhere, but it's a long time since the 1950s.
I think it's entirely reasonable that any civic organization (which I would interpret rather broadly) that wants a portrait of the King to hang should be able to have one. And whilst on one scale "a few million quid" is a lot of money, it's a rounding error on for example the NHS or the welfare budget, so comparisons between a portrait of the King and the wage of an unemployment office security guard aren't terribly relevant.
And whilst the King is of course Supreme Governor of the C of E, I think this is a portrait qua King rather than qua Supreme Governor, and I'd think that mosques and non-established churches should also be able to have a portrait if they want one.
He's not my king, so I don't care if it costs him a few bob.
The portrait is of him in his role as head of state. It seems appropriate that his government provides such portraits, just like his government pays to put his face on the money.
I understand that you don't like the monarchy, but having the monarch as a national symbol is sort of a consequence of having a monarchy.
On any given day I may be a republican or a Jacobite romantic but on no occasion do I pay homage to the House of Windsor.
I was a very great admirer of our late Queen but I never had the opportunity to pay homage.
"The cabinet minister complained that he had been trying to persuade No 10 to let veterans use their IDs at polling stations “for months without success”. He said he had found out the plans had been blocked by the prime minister’s special advisers because they could “open the floodgates” to allow students to use their cards too."
In a normal country this ought to lead to serious discussion as to how this proposal was explicitly designed and implemented as voter suppression.
No, fair point. Charles III is Great Britain's head of state, and I am a British citizen. I am therefore constitutionally a subject, but not a loyal or subservient one.
That we are subjected to their rule is a matter for resigned sighs rather than rage, but I nonetheless salute your pedantry and rather declare that I do not swear allegiance to Charles Windsor, nor his heirs and successors, and do declare him No True King of Scots but a pretender to his majesty King Franz's throne (having a Jacobite day today).
If you take the view that a robust id is required to ensure the sanctity of the electoral process (which I don't, because there's no evidence that that kind of electoral fraud is ever a problem, but I suppose you could think it philosophically a good thing for people to prove their identities in order to vote) then whether or not a particular id is acceptable should depend on how robustly that particular id is tied to the person's identity.
Do student ids have the same sort of robust tie to identity as a passport? When I was a student, I don't think they did, but that was a long time ago.
I may be wrong but these days a student ID is more than just proving you are a student. My OU ID was a way into my details. It should be enough.
Watch out. You'll be executed or transported to Barbados.
If for the sake of argument we assume that there is impersonation fraud at polling stations, then the question is "what level of id is required to prevent this?" Does it just need a name and photo? Or, does it also need the address of the voter to stop someone of the same name impersonating the voter? As the government has accepted forms of id that don't include address (eg: passports) then it appears that they accept that only the name and photo is needed. But, in terms of how "authoritative" that id needs to be the government appears to be inconsistent; they include government issued id (drivers license, passport, Scottish NEC etc), local authority issued id (blue badge, elderly persons bus pass etc), and PASS cards (various issuers). A lot of cards, such as student id, that are routinely used for proof of age and concessionary access to many places are not included. If the id just needs the name and photo then any card that has that and would be widely accepted should suffice - that would IMO include student cards, and things like id cards issued to tradespeople to prove their identity and credentials to home owners before entering to do work, any form of travel card etc.
But, as is universally acknowledged, there's no evidence of impersonation fraud being a problem in UK elections (or, indeed, elections in most functioning democracies - eg: EU nations, US, Canada, Japan etc ... I'd accept there may be problems of this sort in Russia or North Korea), and so voter id requirements are not designed to address fraud and have other purposes - with voter suppression being an obvious possibility.
We shall see...