RayC

Why do you say that? Imo a well argued opinion piece.

"The group (including Benn) used red chalk spray to daub anti-vivisection slogans at the entrance to Sequani and handcuffed themselves to the gates until police arrived to arrest them." Well personally I won't rest easy until the UK's public enemy #1 is safely behind bars and they've thrown away the keys. As TransAm says, get them to pay for the clean-up operation. Bit of a juvenile protest imo but back to the original discussion point: How does this relate to Benn's ability to do her (medical) job?

What precisely is irrelevant? What acts of vandalism did Benn engage in? You state that " ... this brings into question both (Benn's) character and her judgement which are essential qualities a doctor should have". I agree which why the GMC investigated the incidents. They subsequently concluded that Benn presented no danger to the public and could continue to practice.

You sir are a shining example of how to integrate into Thailand society👏😁 Nb: Do me a favour and stop at zebra crossings. Thanks.

Perhaps you would be good enough to produce evidence to support your claim that Sarah Benn has been convicted of " .. willfully committing criminal damage to a research lab", as my - admittedly cursory - web search didn't come up with anything. Benn is 55 and has been a doctor for many years both before and after her convictions without there being any concerns about her medical ability. There is no evidence to suggest that she would be a danger to any of her patients as you infer. It would be a loss to the country if she is unable to resume her career. I agree that individuals should be precluded from resuming their careers in certain professions (see my reply to James105) but do not agree that this list should include health professionals unless they were convicted of a crime against the person.

Upholding the law (all laws) is implicit to the duties of judges, the police, lawyers and the military, so I would agree that any type of conviction should disbar individuals from practising again in those professions. But what about other professions? Should footballers convicted of rape be prevented from resuming their careers? Personally I find individuals such as Mason Greenwood odious, and fully deserving of all the stick that he may get from the terraces, but I don't support the idea that he should be legally prevented from trying to resume his footballing career

I agree that what happens constitutionally in Belgium (almost) never has any effect in the UK; I didn't claim that it did. I merely pointed out the similarities between our two nations' constitutions and how the powers invested in the Monarch can lead to problems. It's good that Royal Ascent hasn't been refused in the UK for over 300 years. Let's play it safe and remove any lingering temptation that may exist to use it.

All well and good but nowhere in the article does it explain how these particular convictions prevent these individuals from carrying out their duties and responsibilities as doctors.

Yes because she is bound by the terms of the Hippocratic Oath. "I shall work with my profession to improve the quality of medical care and to improve the public health, but I shall not let any lesser public or professional consideration interfere with my primary commitment to provide the best and most appropriate care available to each of my patients."

I agree that the issues should not be conflated but that is exactly what you are doing ("Convicted criminals should not be practicing medicine"). I disagree. If these two doctors have broken the law, then they should be punished. However, their crimes have nothing to do with their medical abilities and there is no evidence to suggest that they would use their medical knowledge to harm the public. Therefore, once they have served their punishment, they should be allowed to resume their medical careers.

Given that - and for once, we are in broad agreement - wouldn't it be so much better if we could register our displeasure by voting them out of public office?

Exactly my point. Those sportsmen/ women who want to preserve their privacy largely keep a low profile outside of their arena. Those who court publicity usually get it. William could relinquish his right to the throne if he wanted. Imo after the inevitable immediate media interest, he would cease to be news and could live a largely anonymous life if he so wished. Look at the minor royals; they are rarely in the news If Harry didn't write books, appear on TV, produce podcasts and explore every possible avenue to promote himself and his wife maybe, just maybe, he would have a better chance of avoiding the media spotlight.

Who said anything about It happening "nearly 100 years ago"? The event occurred in 1990 so relatively recent history. Whether Belgium has "a minor royal family" is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that, like the UK, it has a constitution that allows an unelected Head of State to plunge the country into a constituental crisis. Charles has weekly meetings with the PM where he can offer his opinion and, potentially, influence government policy. Why should an unelected individual be afforded this privilege? It's known that Charles has strong opinions about a number of subjects. If he feels that he isn't being listened to, or taken seriously, he has options which shouldn't exist to make life uncomfortable for the government.

I agree with you re Merkel's 'open door' policy towards illegal migrants. No doubt well-meaning but a proven disaster. I also agree with you about the Tories and that, if elected, Labour have a hell of a job on their hands. Whether they are successful remains to be seen but it's hard to believe that they can do any worse. Unfortunately, that's where our agreement ends. Much of Europe has been governed by (coalitions of) centre right or far-right parties for most of the last decade. These parties have largely cited immigration as being the root cause of their respective country's problems. As far as I can see, there have been no positives from playing this blame game. I find it ironic and disingenuous that the likes of Orban rails against the EU - presumably an integral part of the global establishment? - when the truth is that Hungary's recent relative economic prosperity is built upon its' membership of the EU.

How many of these personalities court publicity, and then cry foul when attention is focused on areas of their life not to their liking? Having said that, imo attention is unavoidable for Heads of government/ state; public interest and scrutiny is part and parcel of the job. I've no idea whether William is unhappy with this state of affairs but, if he is, then he should relinquish his claim to the throne. Assuming that he then keeps a low profile - unlike his brother - he should have privacy respected.

Factually incorrect. Like it or not - I don't - the Head of State in the UK is the Monarch. As MrFill states the Monarch has to give Royal Ascent for bills to become law. There was a case in Belgium 30-odd years ago where the King refused to sign a bill concerning abortion. It causes a constitutional crisis. In the end, the King resigned for a day, the bill became law and the King then resumed his duties. This incident - something similar could happen in the UK - begs a number of questions including, why should an unelected individual be able to defy the wishes of the elected parliamentarians? Given that a work-around was found, why do we need to invest constitutional powers outside of government/ parliament?

The PM is the leader of the government. The Head of State is the Monarch. Although he is unelected, the King holds constitutional powers and could exercise them through the use of the Royal Prerogative.

She has gone of record stating that she does not want rid of the monarchy so - unless she's lying - by definition, that makes her a monarchist. Like any other rational person, she doesn't appear to believe in the 'divine right of kings'. If that adds up to despisal, then there's plenty of us who fit the bill

Why not? As soalbundy has pointed out continuously throughout this thread. These doctors' personal opinions re the climate have nothing to do with their professional lives and expertise. Not for the first time, you make false assumptions about me. For the record, I don't have much time for 'Just Stop Oil'. However, having said that, if scientists with a deeper understanding of this subject matter than me or you suggest that climate change is a major problem, I'm inclined to listen and learn. Unlike you, I don't simply dismiss it because it doesn't fit a very narrow political narrative.

The author of the article, Tessa Dunlop, is an historian and describes herself as a "soft" monarchist. So much for republican bias.

You could vote against him becoming HoS. If enough Brits shared your opinion, Blair would not be elected.

The Spiked 'Free speech unless we don't agree with it' school of thought raises it's head again.

Only 579 Russians in Bangkok? When did the rest of them leave?

I agree that UK elections could be more democratic, however the election for a Head of State couldn't follow the 'first past the post' system. At least other three possibilities for deciding a winner spring to mind: 1) 'Winner takes all' i.e. person with the highest number of votes wins 2) Runoff if no candidate gets >50% e.g. similar to French Presidential elections 3) Single Transferable Vote. Whatever system is chosen, by definition it will be more democratic than the system based on inheritance which we currently have.

In any other era Sunak would correctly be regarded as being on the right-wing of the Tory party. That he is portrayed as a liberal Conservative shows how far to the right the Tory party has lurched. Given the absolute mess that Labour will inherit if elected - and the time it will take to try to turn things around - it wouldn't be a great surprise if things got worse before they get better. Unfortunately, the whole of Europe seems to be moving right at the moment. Hopefully, in five years time - if not before - it will become clear how divisive and destructive these right-wing policies are, and we can revert to a more beneficial state of affairs i.e. policies based around a mixed economy and socially liberal values.