Wall Flower

I should have clarified that the main benefits were to the landowners and factory owners but I guess the capacity for greater food production had some wider benefits. It must be nearly 50 years since I studied this stuff but a quick google to refresh my memory revealed that the top 100 wealthiest landowners in the 19th century were all members of House of Lords, so farm workers never stood a chance.

Many poorer farmers and tenants in Britain were effectively forced off the land by successive Enclosure Acts, which enclosed previously common land in the hands of wealthy landowners. Marx saw it as systematic theft of communal property. It had benefits in more efficient agriculture (and more profitable for landowners) and, of course, led to a steady supply of industrial workers who could be ruthlessly exploited until they were able to collectivise.

I don't think the Crown just made it up as I believe it was mentioned in the Dimbleby book that Charles contributed to in the 90's. Earl Spencer has just written a book about the abuse (physical and sexual) that was going on in his exclusive public school. At lot of stuff was covered up or simply not spoken about to the long-term detriment of the children involved.

Be fair, there were plenty of front page photos. Such a shame they were all taken last year. Seems totally legit. They really are just taking the piss now but judging by Twitter a lot of forelock tuggers seem to be keen to buy it.

Looking at the current British Government, I'm not sure much has changed - except the loss of their empire of course.

I'll have to mention this one to my bookclub and have a look at it myself. We're reading two Orwell related books this year - his Spanish civil war memoir, Homage to Catalonia, and Wifedom, Anna Funder's book about his wife, Eileen O'Shaughnessy.

I've very much enjoyed some of Tey's mysteries but I really struggled with the Franchise Affair. The author's prejudices seemed a bit too transparent in this one. The British author Sarah Waters used the premise loosely in one of her own books and wrote a really interesting article (in the Guardian, I think) discussing some of things that troubled me about the book and it's depiction of Betty. Waters placed the book in the context of a post-war moral panic, particularly by the upper middle class who saw the comfortable conservative certainties of their pre-war lives disappearing. Worth a read for a different perspective on the novel.

A British journalist didn't respect a private conversation. I am shocked! Also rape isn't funny. Any politician with half a brain should know not to make a joke about it, lame or otherwise.

I really enjoyed some 'anti-woke' idiot on Twitter complaining about him being in a skirt and then being bombarded by Scots with "it's a kilt, you wanker!"

I finally read Hild last month after having it on my shelves for quite a few years. I'd been put off by the length but decided to just go for it and absolutely loved it - to the point of obsession towards the end of the story. I might need a little break before tackling the sequel. Also, I'm a little afraid to find out what happens to characters and places I've become so invested in, even if I know the bare bones of Hild's own story.

At the risk of adding to the controversy, I completely disagree with this view. As others have noted, Tyrion was at thirteen barely a teenager and a disabled one at that. He was brought in to watch his young wife gang raped by a barrack full of soldiers. This was a horrifying and brutal demonstration of his father's power. Like any child or teenager in a sexually abusive situation, it's wrong to say that coercion or an enormous power differential don't exist just because there's no knife at the throat. When Tyrion says that his cock betrayed him, that's him taking on the guilt that rightly belongs to the abuser in this situation - Tywin. Tywin has Jaime lie about Tysha because, like any abuser, he wants to psychologically destroy his chosen victim - to make Tyrion believe that he is worthless and unlovable. Tywin is a master of manipulation and gaslighting. He's so good at it that a lot of readers apparently take him at his own projected image of a hard man doing what's necessary instead of the monstrous villain he really is.

We still get a version of the mass market paperback in Australia. We don't generally get a hard-cover edition of a new release book here. The first release is usually a trade paperback and subsequent releases are then a smaller paperback, a little bigger than the old MMP but much smaller than the trade version. I have the same issue as Zorral but there are still a fair selection of the smaller books with reasonable sized print.

Re the title, it's worth pointing out that he resigned from Newscorp, not just Fox. Newscorp has substantial media holdings in the UK and a big share of print media in Australia (as well as the rabidly right wing Sky News Australia). Lets hope this is the beginning of the end for the evil empire.

That wasn't all he said: "Elites have open contempt for those who are not members of their rarified class. Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth". If only he had the self-reflection to realise he was describing himself.

I can promise you one sale at least as I really enjoyed the first two books in the Sooty Feathers series and I'm looking forward to the latest one. Glasgow is a great setting.

Sadly, it's looking that way. I'm particularly pissed off being in the ACT as we only get half a say (counted in the overall majority). It's especially galling wrt to the Northern Territory which has the highest percentage of Indigenous Australians in its population but effectively has less of a say than QLD.

The No campaign reached new lows with Dutton's Trumpian attacks on the AEC and talk of rigged votes - not to mention Howard's 'Maintain the Rage'. Dispiritingly, latest polling suggests it's working for them.

I'm a voluntary subscriber the Guardian Australia (and a couple of other news services) to allow them to operate as a counter to the influence of the Evil Empire (otherwise known as News Limited).

I subscribe to the Guardian Australia, so while it does give access to some elements of the UK paper, I'm not all that familiar with the UK columnists. It was a review by Lucy Mangan and the dig at Lilibet was one of a number of cheap shots that had nothing to do with a what was supposed to be review of a program about wounded veterans competing in the Invictus Games. There's a certain irony in the way the British press complains about the Sussexes making things all about themselves by making things all about the Sussexes; whinges incessantly about Harry's whinging and writes endless articles about how sick they are of Sussexes. Even some of the so-called respectable journalists seem happy to jump on the lazy bandwagon and are reluctant to examine, let alone criticise, the behaviour of their own industry.

I binged four episodes, which I hardly ever do, still got the last to watch. It was gripping; all of the stories were moving and very involving. The Ukrainian footage was extraordinary. I have a personal interest - daughter of a war-veteran, worked for the Australian Defence force for 34 years and have two serving nephews, one of whom served in the ME and has had to deal with some mental health issues. It absolutely enrages me that some in the media and online are losing sight of the veterans' stories in pursuit of their hatred for Harry. Even the Guardian's 4 star review was mean-spirited - 6 paragraphs of snarking at Harry (including about his daughter's name for ffs), 4 paragraphs of the actual review.

Maybe a bit ironic that someone complaining about a couple of personal attacks in an online forum also thinks that Meghan is a whinging prima donna for daring to complain about thousands of negative and often downright vicious media articles. Still, I have learned that there's apparently an acceptable level of racism that people should just over and stop making such an annoying fuss about. It definitely seems naive to suggest that the tabloid or RW media, in Britain and elsewhere, doesn't regularly flirt with racism, misogyny and classism.

That was quite the rant. You were apparently born yesterday because Charles was involved in the bitterest marriage breakdown of last century where he and his wife engaged in industrial scale briefings against each other; duelling high-profile tv interviews and collaborated in rival books to tell their stories (in which Charlie complained that the Queen was a distant parent and Phillip was a bully who forced him to marry Diana). He and Camilla get good publicity now because they have worked hard to suck up to the rancid British tabloid press. Not to mention Randy Andy's many unsavoury exploits. Charles' and Andrew's wives were chewed up and spat out by the Royal Family and, in Diana's case, hounded to death by the press and paparazzi. The difference is that Harry wasn't prepared to let that happen to his wife. He left too and he hasn't hesitated to take on the British tabloid press or his own family. Despite your misogynistic framing (controlled by his evil wife, etc) I think he's actually the only one in that family with balls.

The story also suggest that serving officers were in the group up until last year.

I guess Rhaegar's genes are like catnip for a certain lioness.

Apparently stood down from the online Daily Mail - how bad do you have to be for that to happen? In other news, poor Piers has apparently been advised to lay off Meghan while Harry's court case is ongoing so he's had to fill his time slagging off the Aussie cricket team - and getting absolutely hammered for it online by Aussies. He's now Britain's most famous whinging pom.