Spare Harry

[cstand]

On 10/01/2023 at 19:38, BaaLocks said:

I've yet to hear anyone give a definition of woke that passes any sort of scrutiny. It is, as you say, just a broad brush slating with no foundation or structure behind it. Which is why I now judge anything said that includes it's use as utter gibberish - on that level alone it is a very useful word.

Brilliant speech indeed 

Edited January 15, 2023 by cstand

[Highgate]

3 hours ago, cstand said:

Brilliant speech indeed 

Actually, I'd argue that it's pile of sentimental vapid garbage.  He seems to be claiming that the only way for the developing world to increase living standards is to burn fossil fuels, which is patently untrue.  Even the World Bank recognizes that renewables are the best energy option for most developing countries, even economically speaking.  He insists that he is in favour of technological breakthroughs that will provide clean energy in the future.  Has he been living under a rock?  The technology already exists and is ready to go. 

Obviously the developing world needs to prioritize their own prosperity, therefore the Developed World needs to help them build up their clean energy infrastructure. That will benefit everyone and it's part of the latest plans discussed at COP27, and hopefully will be fully agreed by COP28.

He can deliver a speech, pity the content was so inane and misinformed.  I might have the wrong thread entirely ...but as speeches go, I'd give this a ...... Claude Davis / 10  rating.  

[Archied]

37 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Actually, I'd argue that it's pile of sentimental vapid garbage.  He seems to be claiming that the only way for the developing world to increase living standards is to burn fossil fuels, which is patently untrue.  Even the World Bank recognizes that renewables are the best energy option for most developing countries, even economically speaking.  He insists that he is in favour of technological breakthroughs that will provide clean energy in the future.  Has he been living under a rock?  The technology already exists and is ready to go. 

Obviously the developing world needs to prioritize their own prosperity, therefore the Developed World needs to help them build up their clean energy infrastructure. That will benefit everyone and it's part of the latest plans discussed at COP27, and hopefully will be fully agreed by COP28.

He can deliver a speech, pity the content was so inane and misinformed.  I might have the wrong thread entirely ...but as speeches go, I'd give this a ...... Claude Davis / 10  rating.  

Meanwhile back at the ranch more and more people are waking up to the net zero scam ??‍♂️

[Boycie]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

Actually, I'd argue that it's pile of sentimental vapid garbage.  He seems to be claiming that the only way for the developing world to increase living standards is to burn fossil fuels, which is patently untrue.  Even the World Bank recognizes that renewables are the best energy option for most developing countries, even economically speaking.  He insists that he is in favour of technological breakthroughs that will provide clean energy in the future.  Has he been living under a rock?  The technology already exists and is ready to go. 

Obviously the developing world needs to prioritize their own prosperity, therefore the Developed World needs to help them build up their clean energy infrastructure. That will benefit everyone and it's part of the latest plans discussed at COP27, and hopefully will be fully agreed by COP28.

He can deliver a speech, pity the content was so inane and misinformed.  I might have the wrong thread entirely ...but as speeches go, I'd give this a ...... Claude Davis / 10  rating.  

I think he’s saying that the majority don’t give a damn, so what we do makes no difference.  A sad fact if true.

[cstand]

2 hours ago, Highgate said:

Actually, I'd argue that it's pile of sentimental vapid garbage.  He seems to be claiming that the only way for the developing world to increase living standards is to burn fossil fuels, which is patently untrue.  Even the World Bank recognizes that renewables are the best energy option for most developing countries, even economically speaking.  He insists that he is in favour of technological breakthroughs that will provide clean energy in the future.  Has he been living under a rock?  The technology already exists and is ready to go. 

Obviously the developing world needs to prioritize their own prosperity, therefore the Developed World needs to help them build up their clean energy infrastructure. That will benefit everyone and it's part of the latest plans discussed at COP27, and hopefully will be fully agreed by COP28.

He can deliver a speech, pity the content was so inane and misinformed.  I might have the wrong thread entirely ...but as speeches go, I'd give this a ...... Claude Davis / 10  rating.  

5 million views already and counting so I would suggest he nailed it.

Anyway back on track to…..throw your family under a bus for millions pounds thread. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by cstand

[Highgate]

3 hours ago, Boycie said:

I think he’s saying that the majority don’t give a damn, so what we do makes no difference.  A sad fact if true.

I thought his point was, that because the majority of poorer nations and their people have other more immediate priorities, they will just have to continue to burn fossil fuels and forget about the consequences, which is an absurd conclusion in my view. 

 

2 hours ago, cstand said:

5 million views already and counting so I would suggest he nailed it.

I don't think we should be judging the quality of an argument by view count.  'Woke' bashing and indeed 'Environmentalism' bashing are incredibly popular hobbies in some quarters.  But you are correct, this is the wrong thread for this discussion, I thought I was in the Extinction Rebellion thread when I first replied to be honest.  

[Archied]

5 hours ago, Highgate said:

I thought his point was, that because the majority of poorer nations and their people have other more immediate priorities, they will just have to continue to burn fossil fuels and forget about the consequences, which is an absurd conclusion in my view. 

 

I don't think we should be judging the quality of an argument by view count.  'Woke' bashing and indeed 'Environmentalism' bashing are incredibly popular hobbies in some quarters.  But you are correct, this is the wrong thread for this discussion, I thought I was in the Extinction Rebellion thread when I first replied to be honest.  

Popular hobbies or people waking up to the real threat posed to us all by the extreme elements of both ? 

[Crewton]

12 hours ago, cstand said:

5 million views already and counting so I would suggest he nailed it.

Anyway back on track to…..throw your family under a bus for millions pounds thread. 

Are we laughing at the joke or the fact that whoever made it doesn't know their "you're" from their "your"? ? 

[Archied]

50 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Are we laughing at the joke or the fact that whoever made it doesn't know their "you're" from their "your"? ? 

Don’t know , are WE ?

 

[Stive Pesley]

It's Ok lads - someone has found the best bit of the whole audio book here

 

 

[Highgate]

11 hours ago, Archied said:

Popular hobbies or people waking up to the real threat posed to us all by the extreme elements of both ? 

I suppose it can be a bit of both.  An extremist in any category is rarely a good thing. 

[Archied]

37 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I suppose it can be a bit of both.  An extremist in any category is rarely a good thing. 

I can honestly say that net zero is an issue that people I know are now becoming very aware of in terms of how it’s going to impact on them and are not very impressed/ supportive of these targets where as before they perhaps weren’t taking to much notice 

[Carl Sagan]

The Sunday Times review last weekend said much the same. Paraphrasing, something along the lines of "while Harry continually hates on his father for not being his mother, the truth is Charles has never before come across so well in print". 

[ramsbottom]

Never really been a fan of Charles to be honest.  Anyone who would rather share the sack with Camilla instead of Diana is a bit of a wrong'un in my eyes.

[ariotofmyown]

1 minute ago, ramsbottom said:

Never really been a fan of Charles to be honest.  Anyone who would rather share the sack with Camilla instead of Diana is a bit of a wrong'un in my eyes.

Been big mates with Savile is pretty wrong too, ditto Mountbatten.

Imagine if you discovered that a close friend was a child abuser. Or that your dad's close friend was. It would screw you up I think. Then imagine that it wasn't just a normal child abuser, but one of the sickest, most famously notorious child abusers ever. Don't know how you could recover from that. Yet this is never mentioned anywhere.  Savile's stamp of royal approval probably even aided his crimes.

Then throw in the sort of person Andrew is too.

And people respect/worship this gang of freaks.

 

[Archied]

2 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

Been big mates with Savile is pretty wrong too, ditto Mountbatten.

Imagine if you discovered that a close friend was a child abuser. Or that your dad's close friend was. It would screw you up I think. Then imagine that it wasn't just a normal child abuser, but one of the sickest, most famously notorious child abusers ever. Don't know how you could recover from that. Yet this is never mentioned anywhere.  Savile's stamp of royal approval probably even aided his crimes.

Then throw in the sort of person Andrew is too.

And people respect/worship this gang of freaks.

 

Not sure the above is totally fair unless you really have the facts ,,, a few years ago it came out that a bloke who had been part of our circle , he was really good mates with a few of the group had sexually abused both his children , he was convicted and obviously ducked off out of it by everyone, the point is though that it was a total shock , you really would not have thought for a minute he was such a scumbag,

I know saville is slightly different as it seems people who worked with him appear to always have had concerns about his behaviour which were ignored though as the years went on it was blatantly obvious he was a wrong un and personally I can’t watch Louis theraux after what I believe was a keep the lid on till he dies program on him , 

not heard anything around Mountbatten ??‍♂️
not sure how much the royals would have known about saville or if Harry s issues fall under that umbrella, though I wouldn’t  write it off totally 

[Crewton]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

Not sure the above is totally fair unless you really have the facts ,,, a few years ago it came out that a bloke who had been part of our circle , he was really good mates with a few of the group had sexually abused both his children , he was convicted and obviously ducked off out of it by everyone, the point is though that it was a total shock , you really would not have thought for a minute he was such a scumbag,

I know saville is slightly different as it seems people who worked with him appear to always have had concerns about his behaviour which were ignored though as the years went on it was blatantly obvious he was a wrong un and personally I can’t watch Louis theraux after what I believe was a keep the lid on till he dies program on him , 

not heard anything around Mountbatten ??‍♂️
not sure how much the royals would have known about saville or if Harry s issues fall under that umbrella, though I wouldn’t  write it off totally 

The stuff about Mountbatten came out of intel in his FBI file in the 1940s - the source was one female aristocrat that they interviewed, but there were other sources that biographers interviewed who said he had a kink for schoolboys and young men in uniform. How much he acted upon these preferences isn't known, but accusing gay men of being paedos was common so it's difficult to know how true it was in his case.

Savile was a predator and must have also been a sociopath, if not an actual psychopath. He was cunning, and very adept at inveigling his way into social circles and covering his tracks. Given that scores of people who actually witnessed his dodgy behaviour were cowed by his 'fame' into keeping schtum, you have to wonder how aware of his true nature the royals would have been. If they didn't know, then one of their many aides should have told them. If they did know and ignored it to avoid a scandal, then shame on them. 

[Archied]

10 minutes ago, Crewton said:

The stuff about Mountbatten came out of intel in his FBI file in the 1940s - the source was one female aristocrat that they interviewed, but there were other sources that biographers interviewed who said he had a kink for schoolboys and young men in uniform. How much he acted upon these preferences isn't known, but accusing gay men of being paedos was common so it's difficult to know how true it was in his case.

Savile was a predator and must have also been a sociopath, if not an actual psychopath. He was cunning, and very adept at inveigling his way into social circles and covering his tracks. Given that scores of people who actually witnessed his dodgy behaviour were cowed by his 'fame' into keeping schtum, you have to wonder how aware of his true nature the royals would have been. If they didn't know, then one of their many aides should have told them. If they did know and ignored it to avoid a scandal, then shame on them. 

?, had not seen the Mountbatten stuff , the saville stuff ( certainly beyond the early saville) is quite bizarre in terms of the scale of abusing and the access he was granted including such a closeness with the royals , it’s hard to believe they had knowledge in terms of the risk it would pose to them

[cstand]

Seen reports on Twitter that Harry had lots of money stashed in the Californian SVB bank which has collapsed.

He could have lost millions so all the book profits could be lost.

 

Edited March 11, 2023 by cstand

[GboroRam]

5 minutes ago, cstand said:

Seen reports on Twitter that Harry had lots of money stashed in the Californian SVB bank which has collapsed.

He could have lost millions so all the book profits could be lost.