The researchers had a hunch he was there. ATOS pass Richard III’s skeleton as fit to work.
Joking aside, the discovery of Richard III’s body is fascinating and wonderful. Aside from Shakespeare’s brilliant play (which is evidently not as physically inaccurate as we have been told for years), and the question of who killed the Princes in the Tower, there is a romance about lost dynasties which appeals to a deep human yearning for a golden age when things were somehow better, and for “lost futures”. What might have been, had those evil Stanleys not turned on Richard at Bosworth and put their miserable Welsh accountant on the throne?
Richard is described in today’s newspapers as the last English King. The Plantagenets were of course Angevin. The last English King – indeed the only English King of all England – was Harold Godwinson. Now there’s a lost dynasty for you.
We now know that Richard’s “Claim of Right” was almost certainly true and Edward IV a bastard, as his father was nowhere near his mother for months around the purported conception. But the so-called Royal line is, I am quite sure, sprinkled with bastards and no line at all. Not to mention that George I was 39th in line to the throne when given it 300 years ago, but the first Protestant.
Monarchy is bollocks, and something we should have outgrown a long time ago. Nice to see that today’s Prince Harry retains the tradition of remorseless homicide though.
Leicester University deserve congratulations on a genuine achievement. I hope Richard can now be reburied as soon as possible – as a Catholic, which is what he was. He was a human being. The degradation and display of his fresh corpse were horrible; but there is a danger of repeating it with a po face and feigned serious intent.
Because your questions are loaded Node. Have you really not been aware that i have not been accepting the premise of your questions? Has it not been obvious? When you are arguing with someone, on certain subjects, do you ignore their communicated position, even interpret their language only in ways which uphold your choosen thrust?
These two questions have been asked and answered repeatedly,
Do you agree with the BBC’s policy of promoting only one side of the climate debate?
There is no significant ‘climate debate’ for the bbc to cover. There is a hard researched and reviewed international contemporay scientific consensus, and there are maverics and amatures with diverse, there are detatched and varied objections, as normal in this diverse world, and their are clandestine stooges and lobbyists etc. But to give significant exposure to maveric and amature caveats and alterntives would be very disproportion, because the bbc has not given significant exposure to the consensus alerts.
If the bbc allocate one hour a week to the well researched and agreed crisis of AGW, then perhaps 5-10 minutes could be allocated to convincing denialists of thier detatchement and illusion.
Climate and Earth Science denialism has similar right to fair representation on intelligent media as warped warmongers and industrialists have – but they run the show, and there is no 1 hour a week, covering climate science on the bbc as yet.
“And if so, are you happy to let the BBC make similar decisions on other controversial issues?”
Illegal settlements can be said to be a ‘controversial issue’ in fact thats bullshit newspeak for vaildating the inexcusable.
There is no controversy in climate science, only outside it. There is press and public controversy outwith climate science, because of press and public negligent and fickle attention.
Richard Briers, actor, 1934 – 2013
{..}He took over from Alan Bates in Simon Gray’s Butley in 1972 and proceeded, he said genially, to empty theatres all over Britain in the leading role of Richard III on tour.{..} 🙂
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2013/feb/18/richard-briers
I am asking the question “Do you agree with the BBC’s policy of promoting only one side of the climate debate?”
You are answering the question “Do you agree with the side of the climate debate that the BBC has chosen to promote?”
I give up. You win.
Node, no one won wins when all you do is repeat a simplistic question with premises you refuse to defend and you avoid and shrinkwrap all the answers you get.
If you are normally quite sincere, i think your stomach will turn before you come to terms with this subject and your strange defences of the indefensible.
For scientific argument i have encountered over the years that climate science denialists propose that carbon levels have not been altered, or that the (unacknowledge) doubling from prehistoric peaks, does not matter. It can be all about volcanos instead, cosmic rays, gaia stabilisation, unfathomable complexity, anything that sounds acceptable.
But you wont touch shifting scientific theories of climate change denialism, you just state that there are some very fine ones which neverless you havent intrest to defend and you stick on a loaded question which you think science can be excluded from.
The bbc should have a policy which is promotes the science which has been reviewed, not a constantly shifting fringe celebrated by denialists, it should not be the bbcs job to help the major reviews be denied.
And just saying it once more in case your stomach ever manages to bring you to terms with it; the bbc are not currently ‘promoting one side’ because they are not currently promoting either side. They are as occasionaly as possible, covering the repeatedly reviewed and massively researched international warning that our burning of resources is causing a planet wide disaster. You are complaining about even that, because you made your mind up and you arent going to let facts complicate your argument.
This is getting boring, you’re like a stuck record. In fact, you’re like one of these TV interviewers who can’t ad lib. When their guest goes off script, they can’t react, they just go on reading lines from the autocue, not responding to the new direction of the conversation, doomed to continue reading from the script while the audience cringe in embarrassment.
A dialogue is where each person responds to what the other person says. Try it.
I’ve done my best to not respond to your aggression and insults, all they actually do is highlight the lack of rational thought in your posts, but my politeness seems to spur you on, like a school bully who thinks he senses weakness. And that about sums up your style – name calling. You are infuriated because someone doesn’t completely agree with you, so that makes you a bigot too.
ALL your posts make the same point – I am a climate denier therefore I am scum. I have explained that I am not a climate denier, but the stuck record drones on. Whether you are too stupid to understand or are just deliberately ignoring what I say because it doesn’t suit your programmed rant, I don’t care. Either demonstrate why I am a climate denier or give up. If you cannot explain why I am a climate denier, then every one of your posts will stand as a permanent record of your inability to differentiate between bluster and rational debate.
To make it simple for you, the question is: Why am I a climate denier?
^^
Actually, that question is still slightly ambiguous which will give you the opportunity to deliberately misinterpret it, so ….
…. THIS IS THE QUESTION:
On what grounds do you accuse me of being a ‘climate denier’?
Thats easy Node and you’ve totally lost your own plot btw – You have stated over and over that BBC push ‘one side’ of the scientific advice on climate change. And only denialists imagine that there is one side, and another – of the science in question here.
There is a mass of evidence and study and review indicating beyond reasonable doubt a very grave situation caused by naturaly unprecidented atmospheric Carbon levels owing to by mankinds huge burning of resources. And there is no ‘other side’ to that.
There only remains diverse disproven and unreviewable alternative theories. But the BBC cant pick through those for the next big thing, only relevant collections of interested and experienced scientists can do that. BBC should have no illusion to argue with scientific review themselves. Relevant Scientists review science, and not enough scientists rate any alternative theory concerning climate change to constitute the ‘other side’ which you insist needs to be better represented.
You are very clearly in denial not only of the science but of your own position.
Your basis for calling me a climate denier is that I ….
”
But that means that the BBC are climate deniers also because they have stated over and over again (in fact they have published a policy document saying so) that they will only push one side. And only denialists imagine that there is one side, and another – of the science in question here.
And, wait a minute while I think this through …. yes ….. you seem pretty certain that I am on the other side of the climate debate to you, so that means YOU imagine there is one side, and another , which means YOU are a climate denialist.
So this ‘basis’ for calling me a climate denier is nonsense. I’m certain that before you resorted to such a weak argument, you would have searched through my previous comments to look for a quote to condemn me with. If you didn’t, do so now. There isn’t one. I have written tens of thousands of words on this subject and you cannot find any that justify calling me a ‘climate denier’. But every one of your comments to me has been on the basis that I am. Which means that every one of your comments has been unfounded nonsense.
You ARE a denier. Not about climate but about this dialogue. A long time ago, it should have become clear to you that you had misunderstood my position, but rather than deal with it, you have pretended this awkward fact didn’t exist. Fingers in ears … nah nah nah … doesn’t matter what you say, I can’t hear you … oh, have you finished speaking, you’re a climate denier.
This conversation is going nowhere, except round in circles. I’m out of it. You can have the last word if you want, but I won’t reply.
Here’s a link to a recent post by Jemand:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/02/john-boltons-fake-applause/#comment-394650
“But that means that the BBC are climate deniers also because they have stated over and over again (in fact they have published a policy document saying so) that they will only push one side.”
The BBC arent climate deniers they are all full on bullshitters on many subjects. How do you justify how you describe climate science to me, by resting on bbc statements? And you keep on telling yourself over and over that the BBC only promote ‘one side of the argument over’ climate science , simply because the BBC have made statements to that fact. And you just avoid the fact that they are not promoting climate science. You avoid everything you asked about, you want to talk about something else entirely. You should forget climate science – you have displayed no interest in it. When people are talking about global warming, you should say “ive no fucks to give about that but i believe the bbc when they say they are repressing some other side of it and i demand my right to see that other side promoted as well as the side which they say they are promoting”