Daily review 01/12/2023

21 comments on “Daily review 01/12/2023 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. SPC 1

   1 December 2023 at 6:40 pm

   The story so far. A king on a throne, that once ruled an empire that spanned the globe is the only head of state speaking at a world gathering – COP 28.

   King Charles III has waited a long time for a day such as this – finally getting to that summit.

   
   
   

   Meanwhile there was a translation of a book from English to Dutch (their trade empire came before the British) and it named names. Sort of, as the writer of the book said he did not do it because he was being careful (UK libel laws).

   That there were two names was a known known, Not knowing what the two names were was a known unknown. Now, who the two people are, is apparently a known. Or is it, someone who does not know who the two people are says that

   “Some individual has written some rumour and scuttlebutt that has made various claims about His Majesty the King that are, frankly, completely unproven.

   “So frankly I see this as just rumour, hearsay and an attempt to disparage somebody who’s served our country with enormous dignity and enormous grace for many, many years.”

   His denial, without any knowledge of the facts is what a Minister of State for Security would say in an episode of The Capture.

   Piers Morgan, who has no knowledge of what was said but is confident it was nothing racist, named the two mentioned in the Dutch translation.

   said he was sharing the names in order to enable an “open debate” about what really happened.

   Nothing has come from the open debate concerned. Apart from the Minister being ambushed on TV and England the Crown and unproven claims about the King.

   Endgame describes how the Duchess, 42, sent a letter to the King, who was then the Prince of Wales, in which she expressed concerns about unconscious bias in the Royal Family.

   Scobie reveals that the Duchess complained to Charles about two people who had upset her with comments about Prince Archie’s skintone. However, he stops short of naming them in the English language version of the book, citing “laws in the UK”.

   Apparently courtiers are considering their options – there are only so many royals to go around, so denial they were the two would leave Camilla and William as suspects. Team William will not let the King's men do that, nor will HRH now called Queen Consort.

   They cannot claim slander, as the the comments are not mentioned in any detail (and to say racism is an inaccurate inference they would have to themselves state what was said, by whom and when). And any successful attempt to off load blame to the expendables, Edward and Sophie, or Eugenie and co, would mean a deal with the Duchess of Sussex to fit up innocent parties.

   Team Palace has been snookered. Like it's 1689.

   https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/royals/301019166/names-of-royal-racists-spread-across-globe-as-palace-considers-legal-action

   “I blame Dan Wooton and he should be deported” (hat tip Desi)…will probably appear on social media soon.
   • Cricklewood 1.1

     1 December 2023 at 7:16 pm

     At the risk of ridicule….

     My great Aunty, who's son was 'um' very ginger married a lovely Fijian Indian. My great Aunty often wondered how the baby would look, skin colour, hair colour etc (baby definitly landed on mums side of the gene pool) and I can say with certainty there wasn't a rascist bone in her body. She did everything she could to help and spent 30 years odd working with refugees and at hospice as a volunteer in Palmy.

     Sometimes genuine curiosty shouldnt be tarred with the rascist brush…

     She was also a real monarchist and I well remember the instistance of silence to listen to the queens xmas msg.
   • Dennis Frank 1.2

     1 December 2023 at 7:27 pm

     Yeah, funny how the media dude feels the need to leverage royalty to boost ratings again. Almost as if there's a formula in there somewhere.

     I mean, all it takes is a television camera to zoom in on young Archie on the next public occasion to show everyone his actual `skintone'. Linguists will rush to check when/if skin-tone really has lost the hyphen. Mainstreamers are addicted to trivia so media dude can spin another story out of that too.

     Remember the famous viral wedding dress that divided most of the media world into two totally different colour-identifying camps a decade or so back? Imagine the variety of bodies of opinion that are likely to form around Archie's natural colour scheme…
   • Grey Area 1.3

     1 December 2023 at 8:14 pm

     I wish these anachronistic, irrelevant parasites would go away. Take their ill-gotten wealth and shuffle off to their ill-gotten estates stolen from the Commons. The French had the right idea.
     • Belladonna 1.3.1

       1 December 2023 at 9:39 pm

       Which part of French history are you referring to?
       The execution of Louis XVI? – which was then followed by the Terror – with widespread executions of many 'ordinary' people for not following the party line with sufficient fervour?

       The execution of the monarchy appears to have resulted in at least a century of unstable government for France – which spilled over into several other countries (most notably, but not exclusively, the Napoleonic wars) – and arguably was a contributing factor to WW1.

       Absent a time machine, and the ability to re-set history – we'll never know how much of the subsequent 19th and early 20th French history was due to their Revolution. But, one notes that countries which engage in bloody revolutions, rarely prosper.

       Britain's evolving constitutional monarchy has resulted in one of the most stable governments in the last 400 years. And, stable governments, by and large, are better for those who live there.
       • Grey Area 1.3.1.1

         1 December 2023 at 10:50 pm

         It was a throw away line on a Friday but the rest still stands. The British royal family is past its use-by date and has been a soap opera for decades.

         I expected someone to trot out them being somehow an influence for stability. Then I reflected on May, the buffoon, the lettuce and Sunak. Not a lot of stability there.

         Perhaps the Crown's influence is waning.

         The next talking point is that they are good for tourism. Not much of reason for a monarchy.
         • Belladonna 1.3.1.1.1

           2 December 2023 at 11:41 am

           Perhaps you could produce a counter example of a country with equivalent political stability – over centuries – which doesn't have any form of monarchy.

           The problem with your proposal to discard the monarchy – I'm assuming you mean in a non-violent way – is that all of the replacement systems appear to be worse. The presidential leadership of the US or France, doesn't exactly fill me (or I suspect you) with enthusiasm. Many others are oligarchies, kleptocracies or dictatorships. Which leadership model do you propose that Britain should follow? And why do you think it would be better?

           You clearly dislike the recent Tory leadership of Britain – but what makes you think that you'd like an elected leader any better? After all, if the voters voted for Tory politicians, they, presumably, are equally likely to vote for a Tory president.

           And, one thing you can say for King Charles – he's been an avid environmentalist – long, long, before it became fashionable in political circles. I doubt you could say the same for any presidential candidates (or actual Presidents, for that matter)
     • Populuxe1 1.3.2

       3 December 2023 at 4:17 pm

       This would be the same French who restored the monarchy four times after the Revolution? And the English tried it, decided they didn't like it very much, and restored Charles II, so there's that.
   • Belladonna 1.4

     1 December 2023 at 9:14 pm

     I strongly suspect that the Palace will continue their historic policy of 'no comment'.

     If cornered, the 'recollections may vary' phrase might be used, after all the Sussexes have been caught out in so many …. misrepresentations … of the truth, it would not be surprising if they had come to believe their own version of reality.

     There is nothing to gain for the palace in fighting this in the press. Those who are motivated to believe the King is racist – won’t be convinced; those who are motivated to believe that the Sussexes are fabulists of the highest order, don’t need to be convinced.
   • Anne 1.5

     1 December 2023 at 9:39 pm

     Yep. A massive storm in a massive teacup!

     I'll add my take for what its worth:

     Harry was at a family occasion and heard one family member conversing with another about the potential colour of his unborn son's skin. We don't know what was said, nor do we know the context around it. But Harry felt sufficiently annoyed to tell his wife, Meghan. We don't know whether he was being overly sensitive or whether he had grounds for anger and we likely never will. And most of us don't care.

     Suffice to say everything went downhill after that and the two of them upped sticks and ended up in California. As far as I know they're happy living there and have no intentions of ever returning to GB except for special occasions.

     In the three years since, the British tabloid press has had a field day spreading all manner of crazy and slanderous stories about them. Finally someone who had once been closely associated with them, wrote a book and put their side of the story. He is on record as explicitly denying the names of the family members were mentioned by him in any of the translations. Assuming that is true then how did they get into the Dutch version?

     I also wonder if there is a correlation between this story and the fact King Charles is about to speak at COP28. He has been an avid environmentalist for many decades (and was derided for it) and he is a vociferous supporter of urgent action on CC. It would not surprise me if he regards his speech at COP28 as one of the most important in his life.

     One does not have to be a monarchist to recognise he is very well informed on the subject and his position will ensure his contribution is widely shared around the world. I genuinely hope he succeeds.
     • SPC 1.5.1

       2 December 2023 at 1:40 am

       For mine the clue is "1689". History and evolution of the monarchy and the name William. Those who inherit the earth maybe the subplot.

       The two names appear to have been added to the text before printing. Either to the translated work, or to the English text used for the Dutch translation.

       The timing of the books publishing is a commercial decision (Christmas the main factor). When they knew of the role of King Charles at COP 28 (major role 2015 and again this year) is an unknown.

       He is the only head of state accorded the honour of addressing the 167 world leaders at COP28 from the podium.

       It is, Buckingham Palace has been emphasising, a rare honour and, as the King himself pointed out, the second time he has addressed one of these huge climate summits. He spoke at the landmark COP21 in Paris in 2015 – that was the first time all the nations of the world agreed they all needed to tackle climate change.

       https://www.bbc.com/news/live/science-environment-67440257

       You may be surprised to discover that the first time that the world collectively agreed to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change was only eight years ago, at COP21 in Paris.

       Nearly 200 countries pledged to keep global temperature rises "well below" 2C

       https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67557533
       • Anne 1.5.1.1

         2 December 2023 at 10:54 am

         The 'blame game' was started by the British Tabloids with input from various supposed insiders who, in reality, have no more idea who said what to whom and why than the rest of us do. Somebody inserted those names into the Dutch version of the book and if it wasn't the author, then it has the hall marks of a deliberate act by someone out to cause crisis?

         For my take… after three years of tabloid media and their lackeys demonising Meghan (undoubtedly for racist reasons), somebody came along and turned the tables on them and they start screaming "foul". Love it!
         • Belladonna 1.5.1.1.1

           2 December 2023 at 11:55 am

           Why would you believe that it wasn't the author?

           His comments have all been carefully crafted around not infringing UK law – he's said nothing about EU or Dutch law.

           There would have been two editions prepared. The original edition – as written by Scobie, and then one for UK publication – with the lawyers going over it to remove any aspects which would open the publisher up to a law suit – they don't care about the author, but the publisher isn't going to risk a massive fine. Scobie would then have approved the revised English edition.

           I suspect that the 'original' version is the one which was sent to the Dutch translator. Whether that was by accident or on purpose – I doubt that we'll ever know. But the publisher will be rubbing their hands all the way to the bank – this kind of controversy equals sales as far as they are concerned – and there is no risk of British litigation over a foreign language edition published in the EU.

           Scobie, has, of course, denied it. But he's been caught out in mistruths before (about the amount of information provided by the Sussexes; or even his own age! for example). So, I wouldn't regard this as necessarily a statement of fact. He hasn't answered questions like "Did you include these names in any version of your manuscript?"
           • Populuxe1 1.5.1.1.1.1

             3 December 2023 at 4:19 pm

             Chances are a pre-lawyered version was sent to the Dutch translator
             • Belladonna …

               3 December 2023 at 6:58 pm

               I agree. The question is whether it was deliberate (by the publisher) or accidental.

               Scobie may or may not have known – what he's been very careful to express in interviews is 'plausible deniability' not outrage.
2. Robert Guyton 2

   1 December 2023 at 8:25 pm

   Global reputation for smokefree leadership is going up in smoke

   "In one moment of political deal-making, New Zealand’s international reputation as a leader in tobacco control has been shattered.

   The decision by our new Government to jettison three key strategies for reaching our Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 goal, and saving thousands of lives, has led to widespread disbelief and condemnation from experts and leaders in health around the globe."

   https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/nz-news/350122273/global-reputation-smokefree-leadership-going-smoke
3. Robert Guyton 3

   1 December 2023 at 8:28 pm

   Ele Luudman in our "suggested feeds" – are you kidding me???

   Pap – pabulum.
   • observer 3.1

     1 December 2023 at 9:54 pm

     It is inexplicable that The Standard does this. An explanation would be welcome.

     If the answer is "link to any political commentary, regardless of how right wing, or how nasty" then fine. Include Kiwiblog, Cameron Slater and the rest. That would at least be consistent.

     I suspect the real reason it continues is inertia, and frankly that's not a good reason.
4. bwaghorn 4

   1 December 2023 at 8:40 pm

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/503711/it-s-tragic-palau-s-whipps-jr-slams-nz-govt-s-oil-and-gas-exploration-plans

   Another day another country calling National out for being idiots.
5. Ad 5

   1 December 2023 at 10:43 pm

   Tough gig Maharey you were a 25-year true hard core beltway survivor.

   From Minister in the Clark government to Massey Uni VC to ACC and Pharmac Chair you did a lot of good and led well.

   Smart to jump before being dumped.
6. SPC 6

   1 December 2023 at 10:55 pm

   The Daily Show looks at partisanship and how standards of "commentary" in some media.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS