herfiehandbag

The events on the bridge at Selma were absolute manifestations of anger and hatred, which does seem to be resurgent in US politics.

I think she is a very pretty girl. I think it is a shame that she has decided ( in my opinion) to disfigure her body with tattoos. The trouble with tattoos is that unlike hairstyles or dyes, clothing or fashion statements they are essentially irreversible. I don't think that is misogynistic.

He is a nasty piece of work!

I like Toblerone. I was always under the impression that the real reason it was triangular was that if it was square it would not fit in the box. I also like Ritter Sport (marzipan yummy) and Milka ( the bubbly ones are super yummy!). Cadbury's is frankly "gopping" these days.

The profit goes up!

OK- Malaya, Malayan Union or Malaysia - doesn't alter the fact that the USA took Thailand into it's "fold" in 1945, in which it blocked the return of the "Pattani States".

Well I have read the article. BuzzFeed is a US based website. A cursory glance through the other content it headlines suggests that much of it's product is inconsequential tittle tattle. Nor does it's American focus suggest that it is well placed to discern any media bias within British national newspapers. None of the contrasts drawn were really evidence of a deliberate editorial policy, some of the articles contrasted had publication dates separated by several years. They (BuzzFeed) do suggest that the decision by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to withdraw from "Royal life" was a result of a sustained press campaign over many years against them - the Duke and Duchess of Sussex withdrew less than a year after they entered "Royal life"; many of the accounts of actions on their part, and reactions from other members of the Royal Family, which presumably led to that withdrawal have been published subsequently, and spring from interviews films and books published by them after withdrawal. Now of course the pair are entitled to withdraw from "Royal life", but they have hardly withdrawn, rather they have set up a rival hostile and extremely vocal "court" in a foreign country which seeks to undermine, rubbish and "spoil" the established one. They can hardly be surprised if that provokes a reaction!

So Mr Trump is likely to be the next Republican Presidential Candidate? Well, if nothing else, the cat fight over the Vice Presidential slot between Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor-Greene should be magnificent!

I must confess that I don't really follow the Mail or the Express. From memory I thought the tabloid press were remarkably supportive of Prince Harry and Meghan at the time of their marriage. I wonder whether their present attitude is reactive - the result of the pairs antics, or proactive - the cause of their antics?

During the Second World War Thailand declared war on the allies and entered the war ( ineffectually) on the side of the Japanese Empire. The Thai government, elements of which were less than enthusiastic allies of Japan) maintained secret links with the allies, especially the USA. In 1945 a peace treaty was negotiated between the UK and Thailand ( in parallel with similar treaties with Australia) which were signed in Singapore in 1946. One of the original intentions of these treaties were to return the four annexed " Unfederated Malay States" to Malaysia. The USA took a different tack, choosing to ignore Thailand's declaration of War in 1942, on the fairly specious grounds that is was not unanimously supported by all of Thailand's political groups. Right from the end of hostilities with the Empire of Japan in 1945 they took economic and political action to bring Thailand rapidly into the developing American sphere of influence in South East Asia. As part of that policy they opposed and confounded the British intention to return the four states to Malaysia under the Singapore Treaty.

Yes, what's more the lease, which was given to them by the late Queen, has expired. They have not lived there for two years, and the Crown Estates wish to use the house for other tenants, as perhaps part of a more widespread shuffle around of "Royal housing" within the Windsor estate, which is essentially a "secure compound". When the inevitable happens, the marriage collapses and the Montecito mansion is repossessed ( the mortgage is reported in some circles to be basically unsustainable) I'm sure that somewhere in the estate will be found to put Prince Harry, once he is extracted from the wreckage, with or without children.

Hmm, except that, the vast majority of those negative stories come, literally, from Harry himself. He is an enthusiastic starter of the many threads which have proved negative.

Lesson 1: how to choose the correct envelope. Lesson 2: how much to put in it. Lesson 3: who to give it to.

Whilst you cannot really believe a word which comes from the mouth of those two, I am sure that they will know, and have known for a while, whether they are expected to attend. If they have been included then they are possibly ( if rumours are to be believed) holding out for an "apology" or other concessions, all of which will then be made public and spun to make the event about them rather than about the coronation of King Charles III. I am pretty sure that the response is/will be either attend on the same basis as everyone else, in your capacity as Royal Duke and second son of the King, or stay away. As they say here "up to you". If they are invited but don't attend, then they will be irrevocably out!

Excellent idea - doubling the capacity of the existing checkpoints means that you can halve the number you need to open at any one time!

A website which refers exclusively to be and defines according to the US political circumstances. It also makes the point that the terms are used differently in other countries and times.

I think not. I am referring to the UK political scene, and am very careful to use lower and upper case "l" as appropriate; liberal is a position held in conservative ( again lower case) views, Liberal refers to a long standing political party, often to the left of the Tories (Conservative Party). It gradually lost ground to the Labour party throughout the last century and merged with the Social Democrat Party ( itself a splinter of Labour) in the 1980s. Since then, whilst perhaps "centrist" cynics would say it is neither liberal not democratic!

Maybe in the USA. In the UK it is a long established political position, going back over a century and a half. Disraeli, Churchill ( he took it to the extent of sitting for both the Liberal and Conservative parties during his parliamentary career), Douglas-Hume, Anthony Eden, David Cameron and (dare I say it) Boris Johnson!

Why should he start now?

I have over the last years, especially now I am retired and have time to indulge myself, developed an interest in and followed American national politics. Partly because at times it has all the allure of a slow motion train crash (I initially started by looking every day to see what President Trumps latest amazing claim or astonishing antic was) and it rather grew from there. I am used to hypocrisy and double standards on both sides of the political spectrum in my native UK, but the USA is simply astonishing in that respect. Anyway - because of that interest I have recently listened to interviews with both Miss Occasio Cortez and Mr Bernie Saunders - who both are described - accused - and identify as socialists. Now in UK terms I consider myself as a liberal conservative, both these individuals struck me as having views and putting forward proposals which were perfectly reasonable - especially in the fields of social policy and health care.

I have just discovered that the state of Wyoming has a population of just over 500,000, and has one Congressman and two Senators. I use Wyoming purely as an example, I have nothing against the place in itself. Washington DC, with a population of 700,000 has one Congressman (with no voting rights) and no Senators. If the Constitution of the United States needs to be changed, to give the population of Washington DC the same representation as anywhere else (so 2 Congressmen and 2 Senators?) then changing it seems quite reasonable, and really hard to argue against if you believe that the United States is a democracy, or even, as I have been told on this forum before, not a democracy but a "Representative Republic". Either way, having the same level of representation as anywhere else seems a fair idea, and neither hysterical nonsense or a particularly socialist rant. Anyway, I am sure that the opposition to the idea is based on sound constitutional grounds, and has nothing to do with the worry that many of the potential voters are black, and giving them appropriate representation would upset the current carefully gerrymandered balance of power in Congress! A most unworthy thought of which I should be thoroughly ashamed...

The Americans get all old fashioned when discussion moves to Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rica as well!

So a bit like Hawaii, Puerto Rica and Alaska then?

Unable to really make a comparison as my blood sugar is so reduced that the Doctor lass has taken me off virtually all my Diabetes medicines, save a couple of Metformin morning and evening! I am absolutely chuffed to NAAFI break!

Is there a medicine for that? Asking for a friend...