On 2024-02-14, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <l32ar3FbjbfU2@mid.individual.net>,
> TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 13 Feb 2024 at 15:51:56 GMT, "mm0fmf" <none@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> > On 13/02/2024 15:32, Bob Latham wrote:
>> >> In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1@dont-email.me>,
>> >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Vaccinations certainly did work,
>> >>
>> >> Well I'm very sure they do not prevent transmission.
>> >>
>> > They reduce the likelihood of onward transmission.
>
>> This makes much more sense.
>
> Evidence?
>
> I've seen none.
>
> I have seen plenty of evidence of vaccine damage.
>

Oh yeah? I look forward to your other medical prognostications.

On 2024-02-14, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <uqhtjj$2ijm2$1@dont-email.me>,
> mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> A vaccinated person who contracts the virus (normally with reduced
>> effects) will normally have coughs and sneezes with a reduced viral
>> payload compared to a non-vaccinated person. This is how
>> transmission is reduced by vaccination. The word being reduced not
>> eliminated.
>
> I hope that is true.
>
> Evidence?
>

You just can't win an argument with a flat earther!

On 2024-02-14, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Exactly my point, the media and leaders as always LIED.
>

I think this sums you and others up. You say ALWAYS !! Think about that.
EVERYTHING that the media and Leaders (whoever they are) say are lies?
Really. Everything?

Plonk!

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:23:13 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> When we were engineering students, there were only engineers and art
> students. It was a standing joke.

I was a mathematics student - there were scientists, engineers who
were looked down on a bit, medical students who were scary, law students
more so and art students and social scientists who were beneath notice.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 2024-02-14, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
> I'm certain for example that the drive to push this experimental
> vaccine into primary school children

??? In UK "primary" is under 12. Only those over 12 were advised to get
vaccinated.

However only those under 12 at serious risk from the complications of
COVID-19 were advised to get vaccinated.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-at-risk-children-aged-6-months-to-11-years/covid-19-a-guide-for-parents-of-children-6-months-to-11-years-of-age-at-high-risk

> who are in no danger from covid
> at all was insane. Especially when we had NO long term safety data.
>
> You appear to be a victim of the lying media, try reading something
> not MSM vetted.

You appear not to know what you are talking about.

In article <l32b07Fbk7kU1@mid.individual.net>,
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>And there is still no justification for these weapons to be in private hands.

The events of the mid-1770s would disagree with you on that. The first
thing tyrants set out to do is take the people's guns, as King George III
did in 1775:

https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/battles-of-lexington-and-concord

Gun ownership is a human right, whether you care to recognize the fact or
not. It's certainly not government's place to decide the matter; those
assclowns are the last people who should have any say.

--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

In article <uqienl$2lgt5$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 14/02/2024 11:39, Bob Latham wrote:
> > In article <uqi55t$2jrmq$1@dont-email.me>,
> > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > Surely you remember that we had professors of serious note like
> > Sunetra Gupta who were completely shut out of the conversation
> > because politicians had decided what the truth was going to be
> > and only allowed doctors who agreed with the narrative to speak.
> > Perhaps you were unaware of the group that formed of viral
> > experts from across the globe offering an alternative view which
> > was shut out.
> >
> If they were shut out, how could I become aware?.

So you admit you did not hear anything but the agenda main stream
media and did no research yourself. You just sucked up the official
narrative alone.

And yet, you know all the answers and I'm making all the mistakes.

Well I knew because I wanted a balanced view. I knew I couldn't get
that from the obvious agenda pushing media. So I made a small effort
to find out.

I wanted to know why the decades old plan on what we would do in the
event of a pandemic was thrown out instantly.

It wasn't hard to find prof Gupta who at the time was the UKs leading
person in the field but she didn't have the "correct" opinion. From
her I found many others, profs from across the globe who formed an
organisation, I can't recall the name I'm old.

> Look, I really wasn't that *interested*.

But you know far more than me and I'm making the mistakes - ok.

> There are always groups of people with views that they hope will
> bring them 15 minutes of fame and a career on the Telly.

Ridiculous argument. She was/is the leader in the field but disagreed
with the narrative.

> As I recall, and I dint pay much attention at the time,

Yes I think that's very clear.

> the choice was initially between lockdown and a massive epidemic
> culling the herd and leaving the rest with immunity.

Very much the same as climate loons telling us about tipping points
and flooded cities.

So, your life was in danger but you weren't interested to know even
the basics of the arguments at the time.

I on the other had was interested and did my research into what was
being said, not by loons after fame but experts, the best we had.

> With an NHS in crisis

That has also been openly questioned. Did you see the empty hospital
wards and staff doing well choreographed tic tok dancing because they
had nothing to do? You didn't? You didn't do much looking then.

Yes, I also saw brave staff working on the covid wards.

> and unable to cope, and a potential death rate up to half a
> million.

According to pants down, the well known established, world champion
catastrophiser.

Did you not see his prediction of the deaths in Sweden due to the
policies they were following? Did you later see that they did far
better than virtually every other country? Pants down was light years
out AGAIN! I was shocked as you can imagine.

> My cardiologist told me 'even if I wanted to, I cant send you to
> Papworth, because the open heart surgery equipment that keeps
> patients alive when they have stopped breathing and their hearts
> have stopped, is fully in use keeping COVID patients alive'.

Okay. I'm genuinely sad to hear you're in such a state, I hope things
improve.

> Why would he lie?

I'm sorry, I didn't say he lied, that statement may well be true.
Important for you I can see but not for the argument.

Yesterday you told me my cousin would probably have died without the
jabs. That's utterly ridiculous, the chances of her dying were very
slight indeed. No sense of true proportion there at all.

You blast me who was interested and did research and you admit you
did none you just soaked up the nonsense on the BBC and pants down's
prophecy of doom.

You didn't appear to even know that Omicron was the saviour or why.
I'll tell you why. Omicron affected the upper airways and not the
lungs. This meant that it was more transmissible through coughing but
was not so dangerous because it did not attack the lungs.

You should have known THAT!

Omicron also gave anti-bodies against delta which is why Delta was
seen off quickly. Oddly, Delta anti-bodies did not work against
Omicron.

Omicron was the best thing that could have happened, pity you didn't
know about it. I don't recall main stream media explaining that !

To repeat what I've said for clarity.

I've seen evidence, very real evidence of vaccine harms up close.

I know the vaccine did not stop you catching covid as it was claimed.

I know that Omicron changed the whole game in very short order, you
would know that if you had done the most basic research outside of
lying MSM which was desperate to shut down anything even slightly
outside the narrative.

I've not seen any evidence that the vaccines helped with recovery.
That does not mean they didn't.

I know masks didn't work it was a lie.

I know PCR tests were set way too sensitive to give meaningful data.

I know the elderly were forced into care homes and given end of life
treatment, instead of treating their illness.

> The scientific realty is that when we look at average annual death
> rates, for whatever reason, there were around 150,000 more deaths
> than expected during covid. It's like my friend, he isn't dying of
> Covid, he is just dying. But if he hadn't had Covid he might have
> lasted another couple of years.

So what, how is that relevant? I've not said people didn't die of
covid or things that happened as a result of covid.

> Another friends wife didn't due strictly of motor neurone disease,
> she died when she stopped breathing. Because her nervous system
> stopped telling her lungs what to do. Or because she was given too
> much medication (or just enough)

There is no point in me continuing. It's clear from your remarks and
your admission that you were not interested to do the most basic
research and that your view of reality on this subject is entirely
propaganda led and then some.

I'm done you'll be glad to know.
Bob.

On 14/02/2024 16:40, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:23:13 +0000
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> When we were engineering students, there were only engineers and art
>> students. It was a standing joke.
>
> I was a mathematics student - there were scientists, engineers who
> were looked down on a bit, medical students who were scary, law students
> more so and art students and social scientists who were beneath notice.
>

LOL!

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

On 14/02/2024 16:55, Jim Jackson wrote:
> On 2024-02-14, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Exactly my point, the media and leaders as always LIED.
>>
>
> I think this sums you and others up. You say ALWAYS !! Think about that.
> EVERYTHING that the media and Leaders (whoever they are) say are lies?
> Really. Everything?
>
Its not a bad default assumption, if only because in most cases they
haven't a clue what the truth actually is.

Or they want to bamboozle you to gain power money and hot chicks.

> Plonk!
>

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 17:53:52 GMT
scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) wrote:

> Gun ownership is a human right

It most certainly is not.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 14/02/2024 17:53, Scott Alfter wrote:
> Gun ownership is a human right, whether you care to recognize the fact or
> not.

There are no 'human rights' Only the Law.
And the Law is what people will ultimately tolerate being applied to them.

I can well imagine in the so called 'flyover states' that people would
simply ignore any edict to relinquish weapons.

In the UK the current ULEZ cameras covering greater London are being
destroyed - up to 40% are now inoperative. That by law is not tolerated

But no one in the UK really wants to own a gun. The place is too crowded
for safe gun use outside a range. Stray shots can carry far too far. The
positions that the deer hunters use are all carefully arranged to shoot
downwards. I've been spattered with bird shot at extreme range, too
(200m). Even though you are unlikely to receive serious damage much over
50 meters, its still a bit disconcerting.
People who like shooting - and I did at one time - own air rifles. They
make excellent vermin guns. But their human lethality is extremely limited

--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 14/02/2024 18:10, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <uqienl$2lgt5$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 14/02/2024 11:39, Bob Latham wrote:
>>> In article <uqi55t$2jrmq$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>> Surely you remember that we had professors of serious note like
>>> Sunetra Gupta who were completely shut out of the conversation
>>> because politicians had decided what the truth was going to be
>>> and only allowed doctors who agreed with the narrative to speak.
>>> Perhaps you were unaware of the group that formed of viral
>>> experts from across the globe offering an alternative view which
>>> was shut out.
>>>
>> If they were shut out, how could I become aware?.
>
> So you admit you did not hear anything but the agenda main stream
> media and did no research yourself. You just sucked up the official
> narrative alone.
>
> And yet, you know all the answers and I'm making all the mistakes.
>

You are being an arsehole

I told you what I heard, what I found out, and what I decided on the
basis of that.

Very little of that was part of the main stream media, because I don't
really follow it anyway.

> There is no point in me continuing. It's clear from your remarks and
> your admission that you were not interested to do the most basic
> research and that your view of reality on this subject is entirely
> propaganda led and then some.
>
There is no point in me continuing. It's clear from your remarks and
your admission that you were not interested to do the most basic
research and that your view of reality on this subject is entirely
propaganda led and then some.

Bob, stop staring at yourself in the mirror.

I wasn't misled. No one was doing any leading at all. I am happy with
the outcome. I hope they will look into what happened and try and learn
from it rather than make political capital out of it, but in your case
you dont want to learn and you DO want to make political capital out of it.

That's your choice, but be aware that it *is* a choice, and *you* made
it. It wasn't forced on you.

--
“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong.”

― Voltaire, The Age of Louis XIV

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> Slowly we developed vaccines for the viral infections, and they are now
> a standard part of childhood. And the proof of the pudding is that we
> no longer have epidemics of childhood diseases. …
>
As an infant, I nearly died of measles, which became almost unknown once
the vaccine became available, until recent fallbacks in vaccination rates.
My father (a fit champion swimmer) died of polio when I was two, which is
on the verge of being eliminated worldwide other than Afghanistan/Pakistan
where the vaccine has been less accepted.

Vaccines are good. - Doubleplusgood!

--
Paul at the paulhardy.net domain

Re: Re: Google Groups
By: The Natural Philosopher to Richard Falken on Wed Feb 14 2024 01:31 pm

> The police have guns, and many vets will have a captive bolt pistol for
> precisely that purpose.
>
> In short whilst not arguing against your position in general, that is in
> fact a straw man.

I have all sorts of tools I could use to put a dying cow down. None of them is
a great option.

I am not making an argument. Somebody said "somewhere" you can only use guns
for a particularly licensed purpose and I said it sucks cocks. Heck I know
nobody in town with a captive bolt gun anyway.

Come to think of it, if you are chased by the mafia or a terrorist group you
qualify to get a self-defense gun but you don't get to practice with it because
self-defense guns are not welcome in civillian shooting ranges. Hell, a cop is
not supposed to participate in a civilian competition with a "cop gun" and is
supposed to get a different license. Usually, cops use their cop guns anyway
because none of his cop friends is gonna fill a claim against a¡nother cop.

And this sucks LOTS because, guess what, the morons who pick the Santa
Figurines in Xmast and fill it with bullet holes are always the cops and not
the target shooters. Also, the bastards who mod their guns illegally and have
it explode in their faces are usually the cops too.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:36:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> ... it will remind people of why there used to be a
> balance between their Lord's temporal - the judiciary - their Lords
> Spiritual - the Church, and the actual pragmatic government, which was
> electable, in charge of keeping the peace and protecting the realm, not
> of engaging in moral dictatorship.

Were there reliable, independent sources of information back in those
days?

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:50:25 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:

> Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the truth?

The question is not “who”, the question is “how”. There are well-known
techniques for verifying information. The good journalists know about
those.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 16:29:25 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:

> Probably the worst offender in this regard was Jacinda Ardern
> insisting that the Kiwis only trust her misbegotten regime ...

She got us through the pandemic, much more successfully than some other
countries (I can mention names, if you like). That took the courage to act
quickly and decisively, which she had.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:14:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Vaccinations certainly did work ...

Wow, I guess we can count that as a step forward, at least.

> ... but we got the ones Big Pharma made the most cash out of...

There’s always a new twist on the “conspiracy”, isn’t there?

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 13/02/2024 16:58, Richard Falken wrote:
>> I don't think Xi is such a big warmonger since he is taking heavy profits from
>> the opposite approach - opening to trade and sending Chinesse workforce to
>> develop poor countries to bring them into the Chinesse sphere of influence. I
>> think his position regarding Taiwan is macho posturing. Putin has also a
>> non-weak (I won't say "strong") case that the NATO is making open advances
>> torward Russian interests and that Russian efforts to collaborate with NATO
>> against common enemies have not been welcome.
>
> I think a bit more than that. Up to a point, I think your analysis is
> fair enough, BUT Chinas economy is in deep shit, and when your economy
> is in deeps shit having a war is handy to kill all your young people who
> want a better life you can't offer them, and justify draconian measures
> of control.

That's a curious argument to make while discussing China and
Russia. It certainly didn't work that way for the last Tsar of
Russia at the end of WWI, nor for the Nationalist Chinese
government after WWII. Of course Stalin and Mao both found very
effective ways of achieving such population reduction while
consolidating their power, without the many risks of going to war.

> And China wants Taiwan because it doesn't have really good chip fab of
> its own.

Almost within range of being on topic! But invading Taiwan wouldn't
do anything to solve that problem for China. What good is owning
the country where there used to be a major chip fab before the tech
and workers were inevitably shipped out or blown up as soon as the
invasion started? Of course the US will be prepared to destroy all
the rare fab equipment before the Chinese reach it, if indeed they
don't have time to simply move it to another country.

> Not enough for large scale drone production

Are you sure? Mainland Chinese fab technology is certainly capable
of making chips for drones, and how would one know what their
capacity to fulfill military orders of lower-spec chips is?

> It has been noted that Russia, having nothing but oil money to purchase
> Western politicians and governments and Western tech, is up shit creek
> if it's cut off from those.

Russia's chip manufacturers are apparantly focusing on FPGA-based
computer designs, which I find interesting. but in practice I
suspect they'll be buying most parts from China.

> China is vulnerable militarily and economically. in a similar way to
> Japan in 1940.
>
> A roll of the dice might be a 'nothing to lose but a population we dont
> want anyway' move

They're more likely to try and redirect public frustrations about
a declining local economy or ineffective leadership by blaming
problems on foreign powers. They may prefer to fight a war against
the US than a civil war in China itself. Especially if they pester
the US or an allied country enough that they actually make the
first move, not unlike Zelenskiy in Ukraine.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

On 14/02/2024 20:56, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:36:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> ... it will remind people of why there used to be a
>> balance between their Lord's temporal - the judiciary - their Lords
>> Spiritual - the Church, and the actual pragmatic government, which was
>> electable, in charge of keeping the peace and protecting the realm, not
>> of engaging in moral dictatorship.
>
> Were there reliable, independent sources of information back in those
> days?

Of course not. People believed what happened in their village, and
looked with deep suspicion on what was reported from elsewhere.

Newspapers might be read by those that could, but not necessarily believed.

A bit like the rural US states today.

The rise of information from elsewhere coincided with the start of
radio broadcasting around 1920.

The rise of people who actually believed what they said seems to have
been around 1950

--
“Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of 
an airplane.”

Dennis Miller

On 14/02/2024 20:56, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:50:25 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
>
>> Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the truth?
>
> The question is not “who”, the question is “how”. There are well-known
> techniques for verifying information. The good journalists know about
> those.

Well no, there are not.

Especially when it comes to data interpretation.

"Rise in air traffic since WWII triggers global warming"

Consider that.

or

"Global warming triggers rise in carbon dioxide"

or

"Rise in number of people declaring themselves to be transgender shows
evolution is happening"

All these are the sorts of headlines that are perfectly in line with
what headlines say, but they are all expressing *metaphysical*
propositions. Propositions that you cannot proved to be either true OR
false.

The essence of a good conspiracy theory is that it *might* be true.
Just. If you are reasonably ignorant.

For all I know King Charles *is* a giant lizard when he goes to bed at
night.

And then there is misleading by omission.

"The rally was attended by only 30 villagers"

But 30,000 activists were bussed in from London and other major cities.

"The minster was caught with his pants down"
....when a gas blast destroyed the wall to his toilet.

And then there is misleading information that is never actually claimed
to be true..

"Professor H calculated that Windscale would result in over 3,000 excess
deaths from cancer"

....using a model of radiation damage since shown to be totally false.

You simply cant police it 'fairly' because no one knows what the truth
actually *is*.

The current drive towards suppressing misinformation relies on a
religious dogma: E.g. IF you believe in catastrophic man made climate
change THEN anyone who disagrees is ipso facto 'spreading false
information'.

It's no different from Galileo and the Church.

All this is cat belling nonsense. We know what we would like. Facts. But
who will get them, and why would they bother when lies are far more
interesting, and profitable?

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 14/02/2024 20:58, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 16:29:25 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:
>
>> Probably the worst offender in this regard was Jacinda Ardern
>> insisting that the Kiwis only trust her misbegotten regime ...
>
> She got us through the pandemic, much more successfully than some other
> countries (I can mention names, if you like). That took the courage to act
> quickly and decisively, which she had.

NZ was lucky in that it was by and large a self contained and isolated
country that only Tolkien Tourists tend to visit.

They could enforce a national quarantine and survive.

--
"If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On 14/02/2024 20:59, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:14:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Vaccinations certainly did work ...
>
> Wow, I guess we can count that as a step forward, at least.
>
>> ... but we got the ones Big Pharma made the most cash out of...
>
> There’s always a new twist on the “conspiracy”, isn’t there?
>

Why would big Pharma *not* seek to make shitloads of cash out of
promoting *their* vaccines above the competition? That is their *duty to
their shareholders*.

It's a lot cheaper to slip a brown envelope to a politician, scientists
or health minister than it is to develop a better vaccine.

It's just *normal business practice*. No conspiracies needed.

You hire a Saudi Princeling as a 'political consultant' for $5million,
in order to to sell your fighter jets to Saudi. The fact that he is
married to the defence secretaries sister is simply no part of you
concern...

In China 40% of any project cost goes to paying of the officials who
need to sign the paperwork to let you do it.

In the USA and EU 'political donations' to both sides are simply sound
business practice.

There is nothing secret about this at all.

In Africa they don't even bother to hide what the are doing behind a
false screen at all.

"Corruption is a Western concept" say the ANCs lawyers. In Africa, it's
just how you look after your family or tribe.

I don't understand how anyone with any experience of the world would
think that to say that business is routinely corrupt is peddling a
conspiracy theory. Why wouldn't it be?

It's got several names. Rent seeking. State capture. Pork Barrel
politics. Basically any time government is swinging large amounts of
someone else's money, you just feed a donations to the politicians or
civil servants who make the decisions to ensure some or all of it comes
your way.

That is the way the world *actually* works.

--
"If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 07:44:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 14/02/2024 20:56, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:36:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> ... it will remind people of why there used to be a balance between
>>> their Lord's temporal - the judiciary - their Lords Spiritual - the
>>> Church, and the actual pragmatic government, which was electable, in
>>> charge of keeping the peace and protecting the realm, not of engaging
>>> in moral dictatorship.
>>
>> Were there reliable, independent sources of information back in those
>> days?
>
> Of course not.

So what was this “balance” you were talking about?

On 17/02/2024 23:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 07:44:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 14/02/2024 20:56, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:36:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... it will remind people of why there used to be a balance between
>>>> their Lord's temporal - the judiciary - their Lords Spiritual - the
>>>> Church, and the actual pragmatic government, which was electable, in
>>>> charge of keeping the peace and protecting the realm, not of engaging
>>>> in moral dictatorship.
>>>
>>> Were there reliable, independent sources of information back in those
>>> days?
>>
>> Of course not.
>
> So what was this “balance” you were talking about?

A balance of *power*, dear.

How did you not understand that?

A tripartite society, concerned with the rule of law, the use of law to
maintain the peace and the use of the army to guard the realm, and the
moral arbitration confined to archbishops and other clerics.

The army is still personally responsible to the King by the way.
Its not a question of arriving at 'right' decusions, its a question of
having a consensus and a balance to stop absolute power corrupting the
whole mechanism of government as it seems to have done today.

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.