Light duties for the Queen doesn't mean that she will be going out and meeting people, it will mean signing official papers and possibly Zoom interviews. It's a new low for the Daily Mail to use the Queen's illness for their propaganda. I used to be a regular reader but they are now a disgusting rag.
I am not a DM reader, in fact I don’t read any newspapers but the article clearly says the light duties will be internet, telephone and video related. It goes on to say the one event she was attending in person would likely be cancelled so I am not sure why you feel the need to repeat it.
What it does hi light is at 95 she cracking on due to the fact her Covid is no worse that a common cold and hopefully it will stay that way.
She won't be going out and infecting other people and those who need to come into contact with her will no doubt be wearing masks as will she, as Buckingham Place has aid she will be following all Covid guidelines. The Daily Mail wants people to go to work whilst infected.
As things stand right now she is legally obliged to isolate. If she is fit enough to work then WFH is what she should do, again under current restrictions.
Isn't the Queen above the law? I don't think she's legally obliged to do anything.
Light duties for the Queen doesn't mean that she will be going out and meeting people, it will mean signing official papers and possibly Zoom interviews. It's a new low for the Daily Mail to use the Queen's illness for their propaganda. I used to be a regular reader but they are now a disgusting rag.
I am not a DM reader, in fact I don’t read any newspapers but the article clearly says the light duties will be internet, telephone and video related. It goes on to say the one event she was attending in person would likely be cancelled so I am not sure why you feel the need to repeat it.
What it does hi light is at 95 she cracking on due to the fact her Covid is no worse that a common cold and hopefully it will stay that way.
She won't be going out and infecting other people and those who need to come into contact with her will no doubt be wearing masks as will she, as Buckingham Place has aid she will be following all Covid guidelines. The Daily Mail wants people to go to work whilst infected.
As things stand right now she is legally obliged to isolate. If she is fit enough to work then WFH is what she should do, again under current restrictions.
Light duties for the Queen doesn't mean that she will be going out and meeting people, it will mean signing official papers and possibly Zoom interviews. It's a new low for the Daily Mail to use the Queen's illness for their propaganda. I used to be a regular reader but they are now a disgusting rag.
It is being reported across Media, why mention the Mail specifically?
See a picture from earlier in the day showing the front page of the Daily Mail.
Capitalising on it to make your own political point seems a bit low right?
God they really are scum.
Why is reporting this scum?
Read the headline. That is simply a political puff for Johnson, designed to minimise the risk of COVID in light of recent revelations. It isn't reporting, it is campaigning.
Light duties for the Queen doesn't mean that she will be going out and meeting people, it will mean signing official papers and possibly Zoom interviews. It's a new low for the Daily Mail to use the Queen's illness for their propaganda. I used to be a regular reader but they are now a disgusting rag.
I am not a DM reader, in fact I don’t read any newspapers but the article clearly says the light duties will be internet, telephone and video related. It goes on to say the one event she was attending in person would likely be cancelled so I am not sure why you feel the need to repeat it.
What it does hi light is at 95 she cracking on due to the fact her Covid is no worse that a common cold and hopefully it will stay that way.
Capitalising on it to make your own political point seems a bit low right?
God they really are scum.
Why is reporting this scum?
Read the headline. That is simply a political puff for Johnson, designed to minimise the risk of COVID in light of recent revelations. It isn't reporting, it is campaigning.
Why? I don't see this. Pretty much reported across media
Another example where people bring politics into a thread - this is a thread about the Queen having covid, not politics. Go onto HoC (if you aren't banned)
Capitalising on it to make your own political point seems a bit low right?
God they really are scum.
Why is reporting this scum?
Read the headline. That is simply a political puff for Johnson, designed to minimise the risk of COVID in light of recent revelations. It isn't reporting, it is campaigning.
Why? I don't see this. Pretty much reported across media
Another example where people bring politics into a thread - this is a thread about the Queen having covid, not politics. Go onto HoC (if you aren't banned)
Capitalising on it to make your own political point seems a bit low right?
God they really are scum.
Why is reporting this scum?
Read the headline. That is simply a political puff for Johnson, designed to minimise the risk of COVID in light of recent revelations. It isn't reporting, it is campaigning.
Why? I don't see this. Pretty much reported across media
Another example where people bring politics into a thread - this is a thread about the Queen having covid, not politics. Go onto HoC (if you aren't banned)
Good job Seth plum didn't post that Daily mail front page
I am objective - it doesn't matter who posted it; it is the content rather than the originator. Unlike some on here who seem to have have an agenda (and are not objective) or seem set about right wing/left wing this or Daily Mail that.
Capitalising on it to make your own political point seems a bit low right?
God they really are scum.
Why is reporting this scum?
Read the headline. That is simply a political puff for Johnson, designed to minimise the risk of COVID in light of recent revelations. It isn't reporting, it is campaigning.
Why? I don't see this. Pretty much reported across media
Another example where people bring politics into a thread - this is a thread about the Queen having covid, not politics. Go onto HoC (if you aren't banned)
What a lovely person you are.
Being objective about it, it has nothing to do with being lovely (or otherwise), just objective, or at least try to be
Capitalising on it to make your own political point seems a bit low right?
God they really are scum.
Why is reporting this scum?
Read the headline. That is simply a political puff for Johnson, designed to minimise the risk of COVID in light of recent revelations. It isn't reporting, it is campaigning.
Why? I don't see this. Pretty much reported across media
Another example where people bring politics into a thread - this is a thread about the Queen having covid, not politics. Go onto HoC (if you aren't banned)
It’s the way it’s reported. Surely that’s obvious and you’re being deliberately obtuse?
If the headline reported facts, it would simply say “queen has COVID - will continue some duties”.
Phrases such as “example to us all” and “carries on working” while Boris unveils his “blueprint for living with the virus” are all very carefully chosen.
I’m being very careful to not lean one way or the other here. All newspapers do it to suit their own agenda. And they really shouldn’t.
Happy to continue this in the politics section if need be.
Capitalising on it to make your own political point seems a bit low right?
God they really are scum.
Why is reporting this scum?
Read the headline. That is simply a political puff for Johnson, designed to minimise the risk of COVID in light of recent revelations. It isn't reporting, it is campaigning.
Why? I don't see this. Pretty much reported across media
Another example where people bring politics into a thread - this is a thread about the Queen having covid, not politics. Go onto HoC (if you aren't banned)
It’s the way it’s reported. Surely that’s obvious and you’re being deliberately obtuse?
If the headline reported facts, it would simply say “queen has COVID - will continue some duties”.
Phrases such as “example to us all” and “carries on working” while Boris unveils his “blueprint for living with the virus” are all very carefully chosen.
I’m being very careful to not lean one way or the other here. All newspapers do it to suit their own agenda. And they really shouldn’t.
Happy to continue this in the politics section if need be.
Not being obtuse, which is why I asked. By all means create a post on the politics thread. But as I have commented a few times, I'm not really interested in political comment when it's brought into threads I don't see as necessary. But I think its a great idea for those who want to discuss politics, to do so in the politics section.
I do agree in general that all the newspapers and politicians suit their own agenda and really wish they wouldn't too.
Capitalising on it to make your own political point seems a bit low right?
Now this example has been set if the 95 year old from my work doesn’t carry on working when she catches it I’m gonna lose it, her servants can help her out after all.
Capitalising on it to make your own political point seems a bit low right?
God they really are scum.
Why is reporting this scum?
Read the headline. That is simply a political puff for Johnson, designed to minimise the risk of COVID in light of recent revelations. It isn't reporting, it is campaigning.
Why? I don't see this. Pretty much reported across media
Another example where people bring politics into a thread - this is a thread about the Queen having covid, not politics. Go onto HoC (if you aren't banned)
It’s the way it’s reported. Surely that’s obvious and you’re being deliberately obtuse?
If the headline reported facts, it would simply say “queen has COVID - will continue some duties”.
Phrases such as “example to us all” and “carries on working” while Boris unveils his “blueprint for living with the virus” are all very carefully chosen.
I’m being very careful to not lean one way or the other here. All newspapers do it to suit their own agenda. And they really shouldn’t.
Happy to continue this in the politics section if need be.
Not being obtuse, which is why I asked. By all means create a post on the politics thread. But as I have commented a few times, I'm not really interested in political comment when it's brought into threads I don't see as necessary. But I think its a great idea for those who want to discuss politics, to do so in the politics section.
I do agree in general that all the newspapers and politicians suit their own agenda and really wish they wouldn't too.
This whole situation is entirely political, newspapers don't work in a vacuum. You can't expect people to talk about this without looking at the wider context in which it's reported in.
If the Queen isn’t a political figure how come the Prime Minister has to report to her (almost) every week?
The Queen is the ceremonial Head of State - tradition says 'her' Prime Minister reports to her, but as you know, Seth, she has no political power. That doesn't stop others from using her as a pawn of course.
Capitalising on it to make your own political point seems a bit low right?
God they really are scum.
Why is reporting this scum?
Read the headline. That is simply a political puff for Johnson, designed to minimise the risk of COVID in light of recent revelations. It isn't reporting, it is campaigning.
Why? I don't see this. Pretty much reported across media
Another example where people bring politics into a thread - this is a thread about the Queen having covid, not politics. Go onto HoC (if you aren't banned)
It’s the way it’s reported. Surely that’s obvious and you’re being deliberately obtuse?
If the headline reported facts, it would simply say “queen has COVID - will continue some duties”.
Phrases such as “example to us all” and “carries on working” while Boris unveils his “blueprint for living with the virus” are all very carefully chosen.
I’m being very careful to not lean one way or the other here. All newspapers do it to suit their own agenda. And they really shouldn’t.
Happy to continue this in the politics section if need be.
Not being obtuse, which is why I asked. By all means create a post on the politics thread. But as I have commented a few times, I'm not really interested in political comment when it's brought into threads I don't see as necessary. But I think its a great idea for those who want to discuss politics, to do so in the politics section.
I do agree in general that all the newspapers and politicians suit their own agenda and really wish they wouldn't too.
This whole situation is entirely political, newspapers don't work in a vacuum. You can't expect people to talk about this without looking at the wider context in which it's reported in.
If the Queen isn’t a political figure how come the Prime Minister has to report to her (almost) every week?
The Queen is the ceremonial Head of State - tradition says 'her' Prime Minister reports to her, but as you know, Seth, she has no political power. That doesn't stop others from using her as a pawn of course.
The Monarch has agency, though. Constitutionally, she could sack the Prime Minister, or refuse to sanction an incoming PM.
If the Queen isn’t a political figure how come the Prime Minister has to report to her (almost) every week?
The Queen is the ceremonial Head of State - tradition says 'her' Prime Minister reports to her, but as you know, Seth, she has no political power. That doesn't stop others from using her as a pawn of course.
The Monarch has agency, though. Constitutionally, she could sack the Prime Minister, or refuse to sanction an incoming PM.
The second she tried to do either, the constitution would be changed and her position scrapped.
If the Queen isn’t a political figure how come the Prime Minister has to report to her (almost) every week?
The Queen is the ceremonial Head of State - tradition says 'her' Prime Minister reports to her, but as you know, Seth, she has no political power. That doesn't stop others from using her as a pawn of course.
It is perhaps more complex constitutionally than to simply frame the monarch as only ceremonial. For what it is worth the Queen is the head of the Church of England, legal bods are ‘queens counsels’ and the armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen don’t they? It is more anachronistic than ceremonial, but technically I would think conflict between say the Army and any stupid government ‘orders’ the army could say bog off government, our real sworn boss is the Queen.
If the Queen isn’t a political figure how come the Prime Minister has to report to her (almost) every week?
The Queen is the ceremonial Head of State - tradition says 'her' Prime Minister reports to her, but as you know, Seth, she has no political power. That doesn't stop others from using her as a pawn of course.
The Monarch has agency, though. Constitutionally, she could sack the Prime Minister, or refuse to sanction an incoming PM.
The second she tried to do either, the constitution would be changed and her position scrapped.
Possibly. Or the courts could get involved.
If the Queen were truly "only ceremonial", then the Prime Minister wouldn't have had to bother getting Rees-Mogg to lie to her and the courts wouldn't have found that the prorogation was illegal.
If the Queen isn’t a political figure how come the Prime Minister has to report to her (almost) every week?
The Queen is the ceremonial Head of State - tradition says 'her' Prime Minister reports to her, but as you know, Seth, she has no political power. That doesn't stop others from using her as a pawn of course.
The Monarch has agency, though. Constitutionally, she could sack the Prime Minister, or refuse to sanction an incoming PM.
The second she tried to do either, the constitution would be changed and her position scrapped.
Au contraire, it’s what she is constitutionally required to do - stop a dictator taking office is one of the very few powers she really has. If she doesn’t ask someone to form a Government, they can’t do anything about it short of taking up arms.
If the Queen isn’t a political figure how come the Prime Minister has to report to her (almost) every week?
The Queen is the ceremonial Head of State - tradition says 'her' Prime Minister reports to her, but as you know, Seth, she has no political power. That doesn't stop others from using her as a pawn of course.
Surely they'd be better off using her as a queen? She can move in any direction across the board.
Comments
Another example where people bring politics into a thread - this is a thread about the Queen having covid, not politics. Go onto HoC (if you aren't banned)
Treat each case on its merits
Dishonesty by whom?
If the headline reported facts, it would simply say “queen has COVID - will continue some duties”.
Phrases such as “example to us all” and “carries on working” while Boris unveils his “blueprint for living with the virus” are all very carefully chosen.
I’m being very careful to not lean one way or the other here. All newspapers do it to suit their own agenda. And they really shouldn’t.
Happy to continue this in the politics section if need be.
I do agree in general that all the newspapers and politicians suit their own agenda and really wish they wouldn't too.
For what it is worth the Queen is the head of the Church of England, legal bods are ‘queens counsels’ and the armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen don’t they?
It is more anachronistic than ceremonial, but technically I would think conflict between say the Army and any stupid government ‘orders’ the army could say bog off government, our real sworn boss is the Queen.
If the Queen were truly "only ceremonial", then the Prime Minister wouldn't have had to bother getting Rees-Mogg to lie to her and the courts wouldn't have found that the prorogation was illegal.