back to article Queen's speech announces laws to protect personal data

The government is to pass new laws to protect personal data and create a commission for countering extremism on the internet, the Queen announced in the annual state opening of Parliament today. Her speech revealed a scaled legislative programme focused on delivering Brexit, with Theresa May's minority government having …

  1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Gimp

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

    And that's why her Maj is paid the big £.

    Saying that out loud without blurting out "Is she f**king kidding me?" takes decades of practice.

    Following practice in Trumpistan America prepare for a Bill with the words "Freedom," "Privacy," "Democracy" or "Patriot" in the title which will aim to destroy any of the first three and would be a deep anathema to any reasonable notion of the fourth.

    1. wolfetone Silver badge

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

      It's funny, she read that all out like someone who thought before every line "F**king hell, are they serious about this? What a bloody joke".

      She didn't sound convinced, didn't sound enthusiastic about it either. But then again Phil's in hospital and the first race at Ascot is at 2:30.

      That said, it's interesting to note that this sort of "low key(?)" speech, without her in the full costume, has only happened in 1974 when Edward Heath's government were in power. Happened in a very similar fashion to May's last election. Called a snap election, didn't get a majority, tried to strike a deal with the Liberal's and didn't. Ended up conceeding power to WIlson's Labour Government.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Coat

        "But then again Phil's in hospital and the first race at Ascot is at 2:30."

        You do wonder has she asked "Driver, can you put on the Blues & Twos ?"

      2. Trigonoceps occipitalis

        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.

        1. smudge

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

          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.

          Not so - it's not "who has the most seats?", it's "who was there previously?".

          In the event of a hung Parliament, the Government in power before the election has the first chance to form a Government. Think of Brown in 2010 hanging on for days in No 10 until it was clear that Labour could not form a Government (ie could not command a majority in the Commons).

          http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/hung-parliament/

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        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.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        Re: Ex-queen

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

        1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

          Re: Ex-queen

          *woosh* ?

        2. sebt
          Coat

          Re: Ex-queen

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

          There's a certain HRH who desperately hopes you're wrong. Come on Mum, do a Beatrix!

          Mine's the one with the plant in the pocket - the plant who's a very good listener

        3. hplasm
          Paris Hilton

          Re: Ex-queen

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

          Abication by execution, eh?

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Ex-queen

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

          It's getting more common for sovereigns to abdicate these days, and there is half a precedent in the United Kingdom.

          Not saying that she will or that she should. Just pointing out that technically that is a possibility.

        5. DJ Smiley

          Re: Ex-queen

          Errr

          She could abdicate.

          1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

            Re: Ex-queen

            She could abdicate.

            I'm not so sure. When Edward VIII abdicated it was conditional on any heirs being barred from the succession. The fundamental basis of her role is supposed to be that of an unavoidable duty, not something that can be done or not for convenience like a political post.

        6. Kurt Meyer

          Re: Ex-queen

          @ Dan 55

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

          Er, no. Not always.

          That said, I believe there was an element of sarcasm in the original post that you may have overlooked.

      2. brassedoff

        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"?

      3. wolfetone Silver badge

        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.

      4. gandalfcn Silver badge

        Re: Ex-queen

        "the ex-queen can do similarly"

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

    3. macjules

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

      This is the UK we are talking about, right? Anyone who could put "A new law will ensure that the United Kingdom retains its world-class regime protecting personal data, and proposals for a new digital charter will be brought forward to ensure that the United Kingdom is the safest place to be online" into a speech must know that the intent is the exact opposite, given that just about all out personal data is 'managed' by personal interest monoliths such as Steria or Capita?

    4. H in The Hague
      Flame

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

      "... United Kingdom ... world-class ..."

      Message to any political party or business making claims like that: could you please frigging well take a look at what other countries are doing in whatever field you're making the claim about! In most cases you won't have made that comparison and your claim is vapid and meaningless. That sort of stuff really annoys me - empty sound bites rather than content.

      Yours respectfully, Mr Grumpy (one of many lurking here :)

    5. briantheking

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

      .....Errr......

      https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/21/cyber_essentials_scheme_breach/

    6. Ramazan

      Re: Saying that ... takes decades of practice.

      God save the Queen,

      it's world-class regime!

  2. frank ly

    See the Conservative manifesto website

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/21/conservative_manifesto_disappearing_trick/

    The road to hell is paved with "In the national interest".

  3. Neil Barnes Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    to protect personal data...

    So what's happened to 'backdoor for all encryption' then?

    1. WonkoTheSane
      Big Brother

      Re: to protect personal data...

      That's buried deep in the "protect personal data" part - They can't protect what they can't see.

    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Big Brother

      "So what's happened to 'backdoor for all encryption' then?"

      Citizen.

      We note from your comment that you are failing to apply the principles of "Double think" correctly.

      Please review the relevant section of the Citizenship Manual, as a repeated failure will require you to report to the Ministry of Love for more extensive re-education.

      <Signed>

      Big Brother.

    3. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: to protect personal data...

      That's in the tourism section.

    4. Ian 56

      Re: to protect personal data...

      Look, it's very simple. Our personal data will be protected, held safely in the hands of trusted employees at MI5, who have only our best interests at heart.

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

      1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

        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.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: to protect personal data...

          That'll be more like 3 years in prison and £4000 fine plus court costs.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: to protect personal data...

            That'll be more like 3 years in prison and £4000 fine plus court costs.

            ...and a victim surcharge. There's always a victim. The Govt. is the victim in this case.

          2. Blofeld's Cat
            Coat

            Re: to protect personal data...

            "That'll be more like 3 years in prison and £4000 fine plus court costs."

            I'm reminded of the man who was arrested outside the gates of Downing Street, in the small hours of the morning, while shouting "All the government are insane".

            He was fined £100 for being drunk and disorderly ... and given 25 years for revealing a state secret.

    5. macjules

      Re: to protect personal data...

      My understanding of "backdoor for all encryption' where Tory MP's are concerned is:

      1) "Is your rentboy clean"?, and

      2) "Is he a Labour voter?"

  4. Vince Lewis 1

    WHat I want to see in a digital rights bill

    I'd like to see actual laws that clearly state what people get when they buy a license.

    As the law stands Publishers have their rights protected by Copyright law, they then use pseudo-contracts to the limit and remove any possible rights the purchaser has. Its all wrapped on in case precedence rather than clear rights for the consumer.

    I'd love to see a laws that clearly state that If I get hit by the proverbial bus, my next of kin have legal rights to any digital assets I've purchased (Such as music, videos or computer software).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        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".

      2. Vince Lewis 1

        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.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Unhappy

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

      > I'd like to see actual laws that clearly state what people get when they buy a license.

      It's a good idea. The only problem with it is that you are proposing it at least 20 years too early. It takes that long for an understanding of how technology is used by the great unwashed to sink into our elected representatives.

    3. phuzz Silver badge
      Pirate

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

      Why not just pirate the stuff you actually want to keep (after having paid for 'a license', of course)?

      You generally get a better quality product, and you can store it for as long as you like.

  5. Allan George Dyer

    Is this a deterrence?

    What is the point of increasing the length of custodial sentences for terrorism-related offences when terrorist incidents generally result in the death of the suspects?

    I'm not saying that the guilty shouldn't get long sentences, but the proposal sounds like someone wanted to tick the "keeping the public safe from terrorists" checkbox, without bothering to consider whether it was an effective way of doing it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is this a deterrence?

      Conservative default position, increase pentalies. I don't beleive they bother to look at effectivenes of any policy that they propose.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is this a deterrence?

      I suppose case law is not a problem if there is just one or two to refer to. But having so many makes it confusing.

      I solved the problem of if I'm allowed to archive my DVDs or not... by just watching movie reviews instead of buying DVDs! ;)

    3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Is this a deterrence?

      "the proposal sounds like someone wanted to tick the "keeping the public safe from terrorists" checkbox, without bothering to consider whether it was an effective way of doing it."

      IIRC, it was even more woolly than that. They are going to set up a commission "to look at sentencing to see if it's appropriate". Theoretically, that could mean reducing sentences although the most likely outcome will be a big fat nothing after a year of meetings and lunches at our expense.

    4. Alister

      Re: Is this a deterrence?

      What is the point of increasing the length of custodial sentences for terrorism-related offences when terrorist incidents generally result in the death of the suspects?

      Absolutely, they should re-introduce the death penalty for suicide bombers, that'd show 'em!

      1. MJI Silver badge

        Re: Is this a deterrence?

        That was a Ukip policy!

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "ensure that the United Kingdom is the safest place to be online"

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

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

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

      It is true that Grenfell House killed in 1 night more than double the people that all the terrorist incidents in the UK in the previous 12 years have killed.

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

      And there have been persistent warnings from an all party group on this issue since 2009 that have been ignored.

      But, y'know, "Terrorism, innit."

      And inside Conservative Central Office can you doubt they are thinking "Well that's one seat we won't have any trouble taking back."

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        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?

        1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Unhappy

          "or is it actually useful as external insulation?"

          In theory the insulation is meant to reduce heat losses and gains.

          But you've got to wonder how effective it is if it's standing off from the building surface and apparently nothing stopping the airflow.

          IOW a chimmney lined with combustible insulation that's just about fire resistant.

          It's hard to conceive of a more effective way to turn an ugly (but highly fire resistant) building into a human incinerator, short of spraying it with napalm and setting light to it.

          According to the Torygraph the difference between this stuff and the properly non combustible insulation was £2/ Sq metre. Apparently the grade they used is made in the US but no longer available for use there.

          A building material too s**t even for the US to use.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

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

          > ie is cladding a cheap alternative to getting rid of eyesores or is it actually useful as external insulation?

          Yes, it does have a benefit as insulation - both heating in Winter and cooling in Summer as it is more reflective than the original pebble-dash on concrete. Putting it over 'rockwool' [1] would provide even more insulation, as has been done to some other towers.

          [1] There is both 'rockwool' and 'rockwall' available and the pronunciation of various UK newsreaders is not clear enough to be sure which they are referring to.

          My gut feel is that the 'rockwool' towers are going to be just as fire prone as Grenfell though, *if* there are also polyethylene panels fitted over the top.

          I expect the outcome of the official inquiry will be to recommend that similar cladding on other towers be removed/replaced but not to insist on retro-fitting of sprinklers. (It is already mandatory for new build towers to have sprinklers.)

          1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
            Unhappy

            " (It is already mandatory for new build towers to have sprinklers.)"

            I think one of the recommendations of the 2009 fire report was sprinklers outside the block spraying into the gap between the cladding and the building.

            At least 3 (and probably more) things had to fail to turn a fridge fire (WTF makes a fridge catch fire?) into a RL reboot of "The Towering Inferno". :-(

            Any one of those not happening could have broken the chain of failure and saved the day.

            But they all did.

            1. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: " (It is already mandatory for new build towers to have sprinklers.)"

              "At least 3 (and probably more) things had to fail to turn a fridge fire (WTF makes a fridge catch fire?) into a RL reboot of "The Towering Inferno". :-("

              1: Some of them are now using pentane as the refrigerant rather than HFC/CFCs (and of course the insulant burns, so leak + spark = trouble.)

              2: The cladding. I was shocked to discover that anything over than rockwool/glass fibre and metal sheeting was regarded as ok in the UK.

              3: A _GAS LINE_ installed in the emergency escape stairwell instead of the service risers - yes, that's right, the last place you want anything that might burn and neither the building or fire inspectors picked up on it - that's quite apart from planning permission being given to fit it and the installers not thinking "hang on, this is a fire escape". The planned response was to box it in, but even that's not acceptable given that such boxing is usually wooden and not exactly gas tight.

              4: Alarms not working

              5: Firestopping and fire doors compromised over the years due to poor maintenance.

              6: Dry risers not working when actually needed (when were they last tested?)

              7: People told to stay in their flats in case of fire because the original design was to have each flat as a fire-resistant cell - by the time it was obvious they had to get out, that gas line mentioned in 3 had ruptured, ignited and cut off the only way out.

              8: And that's quite apart from any non-spec shortcuts which might have been taken during the renovations. If the cladding had been correctly firestopped it shouldn't have acted as a chimney. Cowboys abound.

              There had been a number of flat fires in that building prior to the cladding + renovations and the building with its bare concrete halls and walls might have been ugly but it did exactly as designed, containing fires to the areas where they started.

              Residents warned that the renovations might have prettified the building but compromised the fire isolation, along with roading changes making it hard for the fire brigade to get access (compounded by lack of fire lane enforcement - 2013 photos show skips obstructing fire engine accesways). The council's response was to sic lawyers on them to shut those (now dead) residents up.

              A few people need to face significant jail time for the gas line alone. This isn't aviation and even a bunch of deaths won't stop cowboys repeating the same tactic unless they risk major personal consequences for playing roulette with people's lives.

              1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                Unhappy

                Re: " (It is already mandatory for new build towers to have sprinklers.)"

                "1: Some of them are now using pentane as the refrigerant rather than HFC/CFCs (and of course the insulant burns, so leak + spark = trouble.)"

                I can recall an article in either New Scientist or Electronics & Wireless World that mentioned this was a risk as people moved off CFC's in fridges and fridge freezers (I think the actual model was established as a fridge freezer).

                But the flip side was thought to be such a small volume of vapour that it would not be a serious threat.

                I guess they ended up with one of those aersol-sprayed-at-ciagarette-lighter situations.

                The other 2 I was thinking of was combustible cladding in the first place and the encapsulation on the cladding failing (in some way) to let the sparks get to it badly enough to start it burning.

                And had any one of the point you make not happened the death toll would have been substantially lower, possibly zero.

                I wonder if the tenant in the original frige freezer fire flat was the lucky one, as presumably they'd been asked to evacuate the flat over night.

          2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
            Unhappy

            " There is both 'rockwool' and 'rockwall' available "

            "My gut feel is that the 'rockwool' towers are going to be just as fire prone as Grenfell though, *if* there are also polyethylene panels fitted over the top."

            "Rockwall" is AFAIK what people in the UK call "drywall" and is basically plaster with a paper covering.

            Rockwool is highly fire resistant. I'd guess it would be retained in place with either an Aluminium foil or a plasterboard panel. Both of which are quite effective in fire tests.

            The joker is what happens to the insulation on direct exposure to heat.

            The stuff at Grenfell house burns fiercely and IRL a fire from the side is quite possible. IOW the material was designed to game the exact test but would fail badly if the foil got punctured or a fire got into a panel from the edge, both quite possible IRL.

            So yes, paying that extra £2/Sq M probably would have saved a lot of lives.

            OTOH there is the comment from either CMD or Orborne (reported by Nick Clegg) that "Social housing just makes more Labour voters."

            But hey, why have a policy that's good for people when you can have a policy that's good for the Party instead ?

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

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

        "And there have been persistent warnings from an all party group on this issue since 2009 that have been ignored."

        And warnings from the people in the building - which were met with quite nasty legal threats and bluster from a solicitor who refused to state who was instructing her - which caused those people to have to go quiet - they subsequently died in the fire. That solicitor's career is effectively over thanks to google - and the "right to be forgotten" won't wash given her role in what happened.

  7. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    WTF?

    "Smart Meter Bill"

    "smart meters will be offered to every household and business by the end of 2020"

    Hopefully most of which will say "My 6YO could hack that PoS" and tell the offeror where to stick it.

    1. Snowy Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: "Smart Meter Bill"

      Hardly a surprise it was in the manifesto,

      The key word is offered as it is voluntary to take on when offered.

      https://www.lovemoney.com/news/64770/smart-meter-voluntary-conservative-tory-manifesto

      http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/do-i-have-to-accept-a-smart-meter#can-i-decide-what-data-is-shared

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: "Smart Meter Bill"

        "Hardly a surprise it was in the manifesto,"

        So were many other "promises" that, barely days later, didn't make it into the Queens Speech and are effectively dead now.

    2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      Re: "Smart Meter Bill"

      At the moment, AFAIK, none of the smart meters being fitted can safely handle a home with a PV system sending electrons the wrong way.

      I've had the installer come to my place three times in the past 6 months only to scratch their heads and go away again. It is not as if the Leccy Company don't know about the PV system as they send me cheques for my FIT payment every quarter.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Smart Meter Bill"

        At the moment, AFAIK, none of the smart meters being fitted can safely handle a home with a PV system sending electrons the wrong way.

        Oooh, I'd like to buy one of those PV systems - put with my magnetic monopoles collection.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Smart Meter Bill"

      smart meters will be offered to every household and business by the end of 2020"

      Hopefully most of which will say "My 6YO could hack that PoS" and tell the offeror where to stick it.

      That means, they'll offer you a (a) a smart meter or (b) no service.

    4. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      Re: "Smart Meter Bill"

      Is also what you'll be paying on top of your electricity bill for the privilege of having one of these installed.

      I'd like to remind people of 3 things about this BS.

      1) It is not an EU mandate. It is optional for all EU members. Germany won't be doing it for example, but I don't think anyone doubts their commitment to CO2 reductions.

      2) It was included in the relevant Green Energy Bill because a Peer took a bung to include it. Cash for clauses. Handy for getting the kind of law you want, if you can afford it.

      3) Tony Blair's little FU to Gordon Brown was to make a legally binding commitment across to lower CO2 emissions across all energy use by a very large amount. Had it just been electricity that would have been fairly achievable. But it's not without a ridiculous amount of work.

      If you're going to hate something or someone for causing a situation, make sure you're hating the right thing first.

  8. big_D Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Another UK?

    "A new law will ensure that the United Kingdom retains its world-class regime protecting personal data, and proposals for a new digital charter will be brought forward to ensure that the United Kingdom is the safest place to be online."

    Erm, this is the same UK that has been rebuffed on several occassions by the EU, because its current data protection laws aren't up to the EU minimum standard? The same UK that implemented RIPA?

    That UK?

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Another UK?

      "The same UK that implemented RIPA?"

      The same UK which rails against the European Charter of Human Rights and how it's positively unbritish to have europe impose it on us - forgetting that the charter was WRITTEN by the UK.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    "to modernise the courts system"

    Can we all be quite clear on this. "Modernise" in the context of plumbing or electrical wiring means something. "Modernise" in the context of politics and legislation is an utterly meaningless weasel word popularized by New Labour spin doctors and used as a cover for "break" or "screw around with".

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The good news is that she didn't mention Trump is visiting...

    Announcements of the visits of foreign heads-of-state is supposedly usual during Queen's Speeches, so Britain might be getting violated on the privacy front, but at least you may not have to hear the Donald coming to town and talking about how great that is and how we should do more of that in the U.S.

    (small blessings)

    1. WonkoTheSane
      FAIL

      Re: The good news is that she didn't mention Trump is visiting...

      Allegedly, it wasn't mentioned because no date has been set so far.

      1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

        Re: The good news is that she didn't mention Trump is visiting...

        Should we wait for the impeachment momentum to build before setting a date, or should we wait a bit? Hmmm....

      2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Coat

        "Allegedly, it wasn't mentioned because no date has been set so far."

        I think a date was proposed, but it clashed with his planned visit to Dallas.

        And I'm sure HMG wouldn't want him to miss that visit.

        It's a light wind breaker. Appropriate wear for a light picnic on a grassy knoll.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The good news is that she didn't mention Trump is visiting...

        "no date has been set so far"

        might I suggest February 30th?

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: The good news is that she didn't mention Trump is visiting...

      He seems to be overly concerned that there may be protests instead of throngs of cheering peasants. I think he's waiting for reassurances from gov.uk that they will be marshalling the citizenry along the routes with orders to cheer or face re-education.

    3. MJI Silver badge

      Re: The good news is that she didn't mention Trump is visiting...

      I only want him to come.

      So he can make a grab for a Royal crotch and get dealt with.

      If he survives a kicking from Phil/Charles/William, how about a new residence in the Tower of London?

      Or will it be his stupid handshake getting him headshot by the SAS?

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: The good news is that she didn't mention Trump is visiting...

        "how about a new residence in the Tower of London?"

        No, there are other people living there who would have to put up with his whining.

        On the other hand there are cells in the tower under Big Ben. They're supposedly for fractious MPs but I'm sure they can hold a nepotic president.

  11. Nick Kew

    This looks like Good News

    I note the phrase "Establish a commission to ..."

    That's Humphrey-speak for kicking something into the long grass.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > "My government will bring forward proposals to ensure that critical national infrastructure is protected ..."

    Fantastic, that's IBM out then!

  13. Hans 1
    WTF?

    Queen's speech announces laws to protect personal data

    Who is gonna protect our personal data from May and her 5 eyes friends ?

    Was gonna use atomic bomb or fail icon ... but seriously, this is the annual WTF!

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Really?

    Listen to the interview of Borris Johnson on Radio 4 news this evening.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "...ensure that the United Kingdom is the safest place to be online."

    by making it illegal to access anything online anonymously or using a fake id.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    About that data protection...

    ...it is called the General Data Protection Regulation, becoming effective in May 2018 and continuing to apply after (and if) the UK leaves the EU.

    So they're not lying for once: the UK will have a "world-class" data protection regime. It'll just have to be someone else's, mind. :-)

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Don't do deals with Orange Men

    And I'm not talking about the DUP.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Don't do deals with Orange Men. And I'm not talking about the DUP.

      I see what you did there.

      Don't you know that May's er "special" relationship with the D "will bring Yuuuuge benefits to the UK?"*

      I'm sure he'll probably tweet something along those lines any day now.

      *Not fake news as it is not claimed he has tweeted this, just that he might.

  18. Nattrash
    Devil

    Hatter

    "Unsurprisingly the Queens hat dominated the speech..."

    FTFY

  19. This post has been deleted by its author

  20. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Coat

    "No-alition" with the DUPes is on. Foster "We'll support you for 1 Beeeelion pounds in aid"

    Because technically a formal coalition agreement (actual DUP ministers in govt) with them would breach the UKG's role as "impartial broker" in the Good Friday Agreement but

    And they've published the written part of the supply agreement the Conservatives have with the DUPes.

    Which just leaves the unwritten parts.....

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like