Queen's speech announces laws to protect personal data

Re: "United Kingdom retains its world-class regime protecting personal data,"

I've not bothered to check the facts, basically because the tale puts the Queen in a good light.

As I recall the result of the '74 election was subtlety different. EH was prime Minister, not being required to resign during the election. HW won the most seats in Parliament, albeit not a majority. EH however won the popular vote. It was said that he went to the Palace offering to continue as PM, justified by having the most votes. Allegedly HM the Q explained that it was clear as can be that the (unwritten) constitution required her to invite the Party with the most seats to try to form a government.

What was it Walter Bagehot said:

The right to be consulted;

The right to encourage;

The right to warn.

Not sure if it was encourage or warn.

Re: "United Kingdom retains its world-class regime protecting personal data,"

Ended up conceeding power to WIlson's Labour Government.

And that was so good that 5 years later we got Maggie Thatcher.

Re: Ex-queen

Er, no. It's a job for life.

Re: Ex-queen

AC: "The ex-director of the CIA spoke out against the CIA. Presumably the ex-queen can do similarly."

From the "other side"?

Re: Ex-queen

"People have to wait till they leave a position of authority before they can speak out.

The ex-director of the CIA spoke out against the CIA. Presumably the ex-queen can do similarly."

Actually no. The Queen has the power to dissolve government and give permission for whoever has the backing of the commons to form a government.

Thing is, Queen Liz doesn't like getting political. She's very hands off in that regard, something to do with her uncle and mother being quite fond of Hitler. Charlie, though, is very political. As we've already seen.

Re: Ex-queen

"the ex-queen can do similarly"

Monty Python's ex-parrot was amusing, you are pathetic.

Re: to protect personal data...

There is literally nothing at all to worry about. Nothing at all, nothing whatsoever.

Unless you have something to hide. In which case you're presumed guilty. As for the definition of "something to hide", I'm afraid that by asking this question you are indicating that you are a subversive and therefore have something to hide and are therefore guilty. That'll be 3 citizen penalty points and a fine of £400.

Re: WHat I want to see in a digital rights bill

"buy them on CD/DVD/Other physical media, rather than a personal license to use/listen."

Fine - then bring in a rule that forces the BBC to provide all relevant content on physical media at a sensible cost, not just on iPlayer with licenses they can withdraw at will, even if you've clearly selected and paid for the "buy to keep" option rather than "rent".

Re: WHat I want to see in a digital rights bill

> Vince dear, buy them on CD/DVD/Other physical media,

> rather than a personal license to use/listen.

While that is an option (for now) with CD/DVD/BluRay, it is not for things like PC games almost all of which are tied to Steam or some other service. Currently Console games are not ties to a service, MS tried with the XBox ONE and had to back down due to fan reaction. I fear the PS5 and the XBox RAND( ) will be either media less or have media with unique keys.

Re: Is this a deterrence?

That was a Ukip policy!

Re: "And what about being offline and not risking to die in a building that caught fire?"

And there's a potential 4 000+ other buildings that are at risk of their cladding going "whoosh."

Apart from being an expensive one-off to pretty up a building with longer term savings in not having to go and re-paint, does this cladding do anything other than hide 60's and 70's concrete brutalism?, ie is cladding a cheap alternative to getting rid of eyesores or is it actually useful as external insulation?