Comments by "" (@alicemerray) on "Pod Save the World" channel.

Nice try by Andy, but it's far more likely to be the owners of luxury flats who can also afford to go to court to try to get a music venue closed. Having moved in when the venue already existed though, really ought to be a slam dunk for the case failing.
1
We need to import the approach to libel/slander that the US uses, as it seems to allow more for ordinary people to accuse public figures without having to fear legal action. I have heard legal podcasts discuss how this works but IANAL so can't remember the details. But our system clearly favours the wrong-doer as it isn't just the people directly affected by an abuser who are in fear it is the larger organisations too. That's why places like C4 and the BBC don't like to take action, as they fear the courts. They've got, as they see it, a lot of rumours, a few actual complaints - usually without witnesses - and a "star" with a fearsome legal team. So they take the easy way out. They stop putting staff in harm's way, they stop hiring the "star" but they basically just wash their hands and nothing is done about the actual problem.
1
I wonder if there's any possibility of change due to the designated next monarch not wanting to do it? As was pointed out, it doesn't seem like much fun a lot of the time. William seems to be on board, or at least resigned, but what about George? Sure he'll be brought up to think he has no real choice, but that might still not be enough to lock him in. We also need to stop speaking of the reduced-style monarchies of places like Denmark in disparaging terms like "bicycling monarchs" - wtf is wrong with them travelling like regular people?! - before real change can occur. Clive Lewis makes an excellent point about the symbolism of the monarchy. It sends a message of fundamental inequality to the whole country and, of course having a monarch also allows for there to be further ranks of hierarchy - dukes, barons, marquesses &c - all of whom expect to be treated a certain way due purely to accidents of birth (& if you go back far enough, probably to robbery with violence as that's how many of their ancestors got those positions way back when). It's clearly not true that any American child can become President, but the fact that it's sent as a message to the population must be a good thing.
1
I think it looks much worse on Charles, or any man, because he looks like a character from a light opera about a tinpot Ruritanian country, or worse, like a dictator in the style of Idi Amin or Quaddafi - one of those who has awarded himself a ton of medals. The Queen, on the other hand, was basically wearing an evening dress of the type (if not the style) a lot of women still wear quite often. Not at lunchtime perhaps, but occasionally during daylight hours if the occasion calls for it. He looks like a loony, she just looked over-dressed.
1
You'll get a lot of people saying nationalised industries were crap, badly run &c and to some extent it is true. The thing is, it used to be that the people at the top of these organisations were just appointed by central govt, on a sort of Buggins' Turn basis. Instead, any industries we re-nationalise need to continue to be run almost as though they were private - competitive (but not excessive) salaries for executives, who are appointed after a rigorous interview process and who are told to make the company work properly. Who don't have to report to some committee every five minutes for permission to bring in a new product, or service. They should even try to be 'profitable' in many ways, it's just that those profits would all be ploughed back into the business, not paid out to shareholders.
1
An ex-pat is someone who has been sent abroad for work or possibly study, possibly for quite a long time like diplomatic staff, but they are always on a time limited stay. If you've moved to live in another country permanently, you have migrated and that's that. You're an immigrant to that country. You've emigrated from the one you were (probably) born in.
1