Well, yes, obviously

Yes, the fact that Pippa Middleton’s forthcoming nuptials may be attended by members of the public is clearly a bit of a shock to some. All that meticulous planning, all that co-ordinated designer garb, all the calculated ingratiation in which various hangers-on have indulged to get an invitation – what’s the point if the pristine picture is sullied by a bunch of locals who may not be wearing quite the right clothes, who may not have quite enough money, who may not have quite enough connections to A-listers or aristocrats, who may, you know, smell a bit?

To which the reply should be: you clearly fail to understand quite what a Church of England wedding is. Exasperatingly as the institutional C of E can be, much of what it represents is worth cherishing – especially at a time when our society grows more divided and our lives become increasingly corporatised and privatised. And nowhere is this more evident than in the church’s view of celebrity marriages – or, to use the correct ecclesiastical jargon, “marriages”.

This reminds us of something deeper, too: people are part of our lives regardless of whether we invite them in
It actually has an official policy on such things. It begins with the observation that “the same law applies to the weddings of celebrities in Anglican cathedrals and churches as it does to the weddings of any other persons”; the fact that this needs spelling out tells us something in itself. It is splendidly dismissive of “exclusivity” deals: “A marriage is a public ceremony which at the least all parishioners are entitled to attend.”

The actual point of the marriage ceremony being that it is in public. Oi, you lot, we’re going to be shagging each other, alright?

Idiot is idiot

Labour will today unveil plans to frustrate Brexit by scrapping the Tories’ Great Repeal Bill, raising the prospect of a second European Union referendum.

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Exiting the EU secretary, will commit Labour to a new EU Rights and Protections Bill to ensure there is no change to workers’ rights, consumer rights or environmental protections.

Err, that’s what the Great Repeal Bill does. Enshrines all of those protections in British law.

Jeez, did we really have an idiot as DPP?

At least it was heterosexual and consensual

A singing teacher at a prestigious Roman Catholic boarding school had sex with a sixth former after giving her free lessons​ and sending her a picture of him in the bath.

David Brown, 46, also encouraged the 18-year-old to take drugs after telling her how much they would boost their sexual relationship.

Another school I’ve been to with a sex scandal. But this is a bit different. Duty of care and all that, betrayal of that. But adult woman shags her singing teacher is not really the stuff of which nightmares are made.

If only they actually understood economics

It was recently announced that the UK came 19th in the World Happiness Report and yet we are allegedly the fifth richest economy in the world.

What is the point?

– the economy is not achieving what its essential purpose should be and we are at least 14 places too low.

Now if we were number 4 in the World Happiness Report that would be a result.

Err, we want GDP per capita, not just gross GDP, and we want it at PPP too. Where the UK is 24 in the list. Meaning that our happiness is 5 places up from our economic ranking. Neoliberalism makes you happy, you see?

Even Vox says Hillary was a pretty shit candidate

The second main argument Shattered makes is that Clinton herself was a flawed candidate whom no campaign team could have saved. This argument hinges on the idea not that Clinton was failed by her staffers, but that she failed them by never articulating a political vision that they could use to capture the public’s imagination. It is in uncovering proof of this second thesis where the book is both most persuasive and most arresting — and where its lessons for the Democratic Party are the most salient.

And if they’re saying it then yes, she was a pretty shit candidate.

Hmm, or is this the reverse ferret? Because they still think all her policies are just great so therefore it must be the candidate that was flawed?

Anyone out there know Hugo?

I want to do some experimentation in building a site using static, not dynamic, pages. Yes, I’ve got programmers here but this is number 17 on the list and has been for months. So, is there anyone out there who already knows this language/system?

Essentially, I want to use it like WordPress. There are already designs for the site out there which can be downloaded, just as with WordPress. But of course with my technical skills–lack of them–I’m never going to be able to get a site up and running.

So, the question is, anyone already got those skills? Set me up with a Hugo site with a design to be nominated, an editor that I’m actually able to use etc? Got my URL already…..

M. Le Professor Pomme de Terre

Simon Saize says:
April 23 2017 at 5:21 pm
The purpose of the Great Repeal Bill is to bring the corpus of EU law under the aegis of the British parliament. The Henry VIII powers are needed to re-word the legislation to make UK agencies responsible for enforcing the legislation.

The next phase (and it may well last a decade or more) will be for Parliament to scrutinise this mountain of regulation item by item and then amend, repeal or continue with each measure.

Reply
Richard Murphy says:
April 23 2017 at 5:57 pm
Simon

Do pigs fly past your window at frequent intervals?

I have to say that if you want to post here it’s best not to use what looks like a very fabricated name that happens to shorten to SS and to then post propaganda

Richard

It’s propaganda to rightly describe something these days.

Won’t happen but what if it did?

By the mid-2000s, some economists began wondering whether Big Data could discern every individual’s own personal demand curve—thereby turning the classroom hypothetical of “perfect price discrimination” (a price that’s calibrated precisely to the maximum that you will pay) into an actual possibility.

What if – we’d all be vastly poorer as the consumer surplus would vanish.

Not quite how I’d describe it myself

Jimmy Choo has put itself up for sale as part of an evaluation of its future.
The British luxury brand, which specialises in shoes and accessories, said it was to conduct a review of various strategic options to “maximise value for its shareholders”, including the possibility of a sale.

Because what is being said there is “We hope we can find some other bugger who values it more than we do”

Eh?

FIVE women were reportedly victims of a brutal and alleged homophobic attack by a group of men in Hampshire.

One of the women reportedly lost seven teeth when she was punched in the face.

The women were assaulted as they walked home after a night out in Portsmouth at 11.30pm on April 16.

It is understood the victims, were in a group of eight, when they received homophobic abuse from seven men who then went onto attack them.

Attacking women is now homophobic?

Sigh

Serena Williams’s pregnant victory reminds us how amazing women’s bodies are
Natasha Henry
The tennis star triumphed at the Australian Open without dropping a set while in her first trimester. Are women the weaker sex? I don’t think so

Hmm, little meiotic glob of cells that no one would note if it just slipped away, or were forcibly removed.

Funny how the descriptions of early stage pregnancy change dependent upon the point being made, isn’t it?

BTW, as to women being the stronger sex, in terms of endurance yes quite probably. Don’t forget that your great grandmother – dependent upon your age today possibly your great great – and all her forbears in the matriarchal line spent the entirety of their adult lives pregnant, suckling or too old to do either.

Women doing stuff while pregnant is the natural state of humanity.

How to solve everyday sexism

Language reflects and reinforces social norms; ungendering language is an important part of solving sexism. And there has been some progress. As you might expect, much of this emanates from Sweden. In the 1990s, there was consternation among Swedes that there was a colloquial, non-sexual word for penis (“snopp”) but no female equivalent; a discrepancy with ramifications on how children view and learn about their body. So Anna Kosztovics, a social worker from Malmö, coined “snippa” in 2000 and started promoting it. The government encouraged her efforts. Apparently, nursery school teachers were encouraged to put up notes on their doors asking: “Have you said snippa today?” Snippa entered the Swedish dictionary in 2006 and is now widely used.

Earlier this year, Kosztovics called for the UK to follow Sweden’s lead in a video on the BBC. British English has the word “willy” but lacks a widely used non-clinical, non-sexual way to talk about the vagina. Kosztovics says this means “little girls grow up with the thought that there is something wrong between their legs”. She adds: “There are 360 million people who speak English and I think it’s time for you to discover your own word … I say let the best word win.”

We need to find a new way to say cunt.

You know, I have this feeling that it’s going to be a bit more complicated than that, I really do.

Spud blight

What, then, is that ‘something’? That is the question that needs to be asked. I think the answer is apparent. It is about advancing the neoliberal cause…….. Like all neoliberals her one goal is to push back the state and increase inequality.

Isn’t it interesting that inequality has been declining these past few years?

The so-called Great Repeal Bill, with its Henry VIII clauses that willdeny accountability, will reduce employee and environmental rights, harm the protection for those with disabilities (as if that could still be imagined), diminish universal rights to health care, harm security in old age, damagingly bias markets in favour of big business and foreign owned companies, remove legal protections, probably claw back against LGBT rights, undermine social stability and encourage the break up of the Union. But none if this will matter to May. She will have fostered the self interest of the few, increased their access to the state as a means for appropriating its common wealth for private gain and will have put in place mechanisms that will be contractually hard for successors to unwind. That is the goal.

And amazingly the Great Repeal Bill does absolutely none of those things. It simply encapsulates all of those protections we currently derive from EU law into British domestic law. Not a single one is repealed.

So how’s that for Spud’s blight upon the body politic?