Latest news with #HenryVI
Spectator
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Keir Starmer is seriously stupid
Sir Keir has returned from his worldwide statesmanship tour. Barely the edge of a photograph went ungurned in, not a bottom went unkissed, no platitude went ungarbled. Now – lucky us! – he was back in the House of Commons for a good long crow about his achievements. As always, there was an obsequious toad ready on the Labour backbenches The PM began with the usual Starmerite guff production. The man is a veritable Chinese Power Station of pompous pollution. This, however, was more smug than smog. It began with a round-up of how crucial he'd been in every negotiation and discussion. 'We're following in the footsteps of Attlee and Bevan,' crowed Starmer. Well, up to a point Comrade Copper. I mean, his cabinet hated each other too. Apparently, the G7 was going to 'follow Britain's lead' on controlling illegal migration. I genuinely think he didn't see the irony in this. What's next? The G7 to follow North Korea's lead on free speech? Nato to follow Spain's lead on afternoon productivity? Dick the Butcher, in Henry VI, Part 2, famously exclaims 'now let's kill all the lawyers'. It was this energy and spirit which Kemi Badenoch sought to channel as she stood to respond to the Prime Minister's 12-minute self-paean. 'What we need is a leader, instead we have three lawyers', she said, referencing the PM, Lord Hermer and the Sage of Tottenham, David Lammy. The PM's slavish following of legal advice was a major theme of her speech. A picture emerged of a man who, if some UN precedent could be found for it, would crawl up and down Pall Mall in a leather gimp-suit singing 'I'm a Little Teapot' and then claim it as a stunning victory for soft power. Dame Emily Thornberry also invoked the 'soft power' geopolitical sugar plum fairy. Perhaps to distract from her troublemaking over welfare cuts, she put on a sort of sickly-sweet Pollyanna-ish voice to ask her non-question. Normally her mode of delivery is like a buffalo that's just smoked 100 Superkings. More soft pitches were thrown in Sir Keir's direction by Sir Ed 'Babe Ruth' Davey, who, while ostensibly asking questions on behalf of the Lib Dems, had as his most used phrase today 'I agree with the Prime Minister'. As always, there was an obsequious toad ready on the Labour backbenches to perform the act of ego-stoking necessary to keep the leader's sense of self intact. Enter John Slinger, who decried petty party politics, then praised the Prime Minister for the unique 'human empathy' he had brought to international diplomacy. Slinger is apparently MP for Rugby. I had assumed he actually represented the underside of a rock somewhere in the deepest, darkest Amazon because that appears to be where he has been living for the past 12 months. There was even a gentle backscratcher of a question from Rishi Sunak about Iranian sanctions. Would anyone in the House follow Mrs Badenoch's lead and try to pop St Pancras's very own pig's bladder of pomposity? Step forward, Stephen Flynn. The SNP's Westminster leader resembles an apoplectic egg and is the only person in the chamber who appears to hate the PM more than Kemi Badenoch and Big Ange do. How could Sir Keir make his arguments about foreign policy on moral grounds when he was about to cut aid to the disabled, he asked? Cue more fleshy clucking from Starmer. At the end of his rant, Flynn was called what had become the word of the day in this nightmarish episode of Sesame Street: 'unserious'. For all his capacity to render himself ridiculous by his legalistic pomposity, there is always potential for the PM to add to it. He is particularly keen on affecting the air of a self-important substitute teacher when addressing the Leader of the Opposition; 'not angry, just disappointed'. Inevitably, the PM also accused Badenoch of being 'unserious'. Further irony there of course, because as every good comedian knows, nothing is more ridiculous than someone going about something innately stupid – self destructive even – with the utmost seriousness.
Times
18-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Times
‘Angry co-writer' compared Shakespeare to an upstart crow
William Shakespeare's co-writer for his first history play has been identified as the anonymous source who branded the playwright an 'upstart crow'. Textual analysis using artificial intelligence has fingered Thomas Nashe as the culprit behind the caustic attack on Shakespeare, in a 1592 pamphlet that suggested the fledgling playwright from the provinces had ideas above his station. A new academic paper has suggested that the pair's collaboration on Henry VI Part 1 could have prompted Nashe to dismiss Shakespeare in the pamphlet as one who 'supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you'. Nashe is thought to have written the first act and other segments of the play, which was first performed at the Rose Theatre in London in 1592 and quickly followed by two further instalments.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judges on Trump's war on Big Law: 5 explosive quotes from recent orders
Trump is on a losing streak in court against law firms challenging his executive orders. Judges cite constitutional violations and lack of national security justification. The Paul Weiss deal has repeatedly come up in rulings striking down executive orders. President Donald Trump's recent string of court losses in his war on Big Law has resulted in sweeping smackdowns from federal judges. The judges, all sitting in the US District Court for Washington, DC, ruled against the Trump administration and blocked executive orders targeting WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie. A decision is still pending in a fourth lawsuit brought by Susman Godfrey over an order targeting the firm. Nine other law firms have struck deals with Trump, promising a collective near-$1 billion in pro bono work toward his political priorities while averting a punitive executive order. But the deal struck with Paul Weiss — the first firm to reach an agreement, resulting in a rolled-back executive order — may have backfired on the Trump administration. In ruling after ruling, judges cite the Paul Weiss affair as an example of how Trump's purported "national security" justifications for his executive orders never made any sense. Here are the five sharpest takedowns from judges in the Big Law fight. Coming out of the gate with the first summary judgment decision, US District Judge Beryl Howell compared Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie to a quote from William Shakespeare's "Henry VI." "In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase 'Let's kill all the lawyers,' EO 14230 takes the approach of 'Let's kill the lawyers I don't like,' sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else," Howell wrote. Trump's executive order, Howell said, was meant to disarm a law firm that might challenge his power. "When Shakespeare's character, a rebel leader intent on becoming king, hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part of his plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding '[a]way with him,' referring to an educated clerk, who 'can make obligations and write court hand,'" Howell wrote. "Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power." In an order protecting Jenner & Block, US District Judge John Bates wrote that Trump's order violated the US Constitution in two ways: It violated the First Amendment by using "the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression," and it sought to undermine the courts. "Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution," Bates wrote. The "more pernicious" message of Trump's order was to prevent lawyers from protecting people against "governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy," according to Bates. "This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn't like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers," he wrote. Like the other judges, Bates pointed to Trump backtracking his executive order targeting Paul Weiss as evidence that his legal justifications for executive orders targeting other law firms were not sincere. In each order, Trump has claimed that "national security" issues — which Justice Department lawyers struggled to explain in court filings and hearings — allowed him to issue orders stripping law firm employees of security clearances and cutting them off from government buildings and employees. Bates wrote that the rollback of the order targeting Paul Weiss demonstrated that it was never the real reason behind Trump's order targeting Jenner & Block. "If any doubt remains as to the sincerity of the invocation of national security, take a look at the Paul Weiss saga," Bates wrote. "Paul Weiss's executive order imposed the same tailored process on its employees' security clearances," he continued. "What it took to escape that process — denouncing a former partner, changing client selection and hiring practices, and pledging pro bono work to the President's liking — had not even a glancing relationship to national security." US District Judge Richard Leon's exclamation point-ridden order knocking down an executive order targeting WilmerHale quotes from Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist papers about the importance of an independent judiciary. He wasn't alone — Howell said in her earlier order that John Adams made the unpopular decision to represent British soldiers accused of murder for their roles in the Boston Massacre. "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting," Leon wrote. "The Founding Fathers knew this!" Trump's executive orders violated those "fundamental rights," he wrote. "I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional," he wrote. "Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!" Leon's gumbo metaphor is, once again, a spicy swipe at Paul Weiss. In arguments leading up to each decision, judges weighed whether to block the entirety of each of Trump's orders or allow some parts to stand. In a footnote, Leon broke down the five different sections of the WilmerHale order and compared them to gumbo ingredients. "The Order is akin to a gumbo. Sections 2 through 5 are the meaty ingredients — e.g., the Andouille, the okra, the tomatoes, the crab, the oysters," the judge wrote. "But it is the roux — here, §1 — which holds everything together." Leon wrote that Trump rescinding Paul Weiss's order "in full" after it struck a deal shows that he intended the orders "to stand or fall as a whole." "A gumbo is served and eaten with all the ingredients together, and so too must the sections of the Order be addressed together," he wrote. The judge also made clear that the gumbo is spicy. "As explained in this Memorandum Opinion, this gumbo gives the Court heartburn," he wrote. Read the original article on Business Insider
Business Insider
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Insider
Judges on Trump's war on Big Law: 5 explosive quotes from recent orders
President Donald Trump's recent string of court losses in his war on Big Law has resulted in sweeping smackdowns from federal judges. The judges, all sitting in the US District Court for Washington, DC, ruled against the Trump administration and blocked executive orders targeting WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie. A decision is still pending in a fourth lawsuit brought by Susman Godfrey over an order targeting the firm. Nine other law firms have struck deals with Trump, promising a collective near-$1 billion in pro bono work toward his political priorities while averting a punitive executive order. But the deal struck with Paul Weiss — the first firm to reach an agreement, resulting in a rolled-back executive order — may have backfired on the Trump administration. In ruling after ruling, judges cite the Paul Weiss affair as an example of how Trump's purported "national security" justifications for his executive orders never made any sense. Here are the five sharpest takedowns from judges in the Big Law fight. 1. 'Kill all the lawyers' Coming out of the gate with the first summary judgment decision, US District Judge Beryl Howell compared Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie to a quote from William Shakespeare's "Henry VI." "In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase 'Let's kill all the lawyers,' EO 14230 takes the approach of 'Let's kill the lawyers I don't like,' sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else," Howell wrote. Trump's executive order, Howell said, was meant to disarm a law firm that might challenge his power. "When Shakespeare's character, a rebel leader intent on becoming king, hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part of his plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding '[a]way with him,' referring to an educated clerk, who 'can make obligations and write court hand,'" Howell wrote. "Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power." 2. 'Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution' In an order protecting Jenner & Block, US District Judge John Bates wrote that Trump's order violated the US Constitution in two ways: It violated the First Amendment by using "the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression," and it sought to undermine the courts. "Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution," Bates wrote. The "more pernicious" message of Trump's order was to prevent lawyers from protecting people against "governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy," according to Bates. "This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn't like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers," he wrote. 3. "Take a look at the Paul Weiss saga" Like the other judges, Bates pointed to Trump backtracking his executive order targeting Paul Weiss as evidence that his legal justifications for executive orders targeting other law firms were not sincere. In each order, Trump has claimed that "national security" issues — which Justice Department lawyers struggled to explain in court filings and hearings — allowed him to issue orders stripping law firm employees of security clearances and cutting them off from government buildings and employees. Bates wrote that the rollback of the order targeting Paul Weiss demonstrated that it was never the real reason behind Trump's order targeting Jenner & Block. "If any doubt remains as to the sincerity of the invocation of national security, take a look at the Paul Weiss saga," Bates wrote. "Paul Weiss's executive order imposed the same tailored process on its employees' security clearances," he continued. "What it took to escape that process — denouncing a former partner, changing client selection and hiring practices, and pledging pro bono work to the President's liking — had not even a glancing relationship to national security." 4. "The Founding Fathers knew this!" US District Judge Richard Leon's exclamation point-ridden order knocking down an executive order targeting WilmerHale quotes from Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist papers about the importance of an independent judiciary. He wasn't alone — Howell said in her earlier order that John Adams made the unpopular decision to represent British soldiers accused of murder for their roles in the Boston Massacre. "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting," Leon wrote. "The Founding Fathers knew this!" Trump's executive orders violated those "fundamental rights," he wrote. "I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional," he wrote. "Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!" 5. "The Order is akin to a gumbo" Leon's gumbo metaphor is, once again, a spicy swipe at Paul Weiss. In arguments leading up to each decision, judges weighed whether to block the entirety of each of Trump's orders or allow some parts to stand. In a footnote, Leon broke down the five different sections of the WilmerHale order and compared them to gumbo ingredients. "The Order is akin to a gumbo. Sections 2 through 5 are the meaty ingredients — e.g., the Andouille, the okra, the tomatoes, the crab, the oysters," the judge wrote. "But it is the roux — here, §1 — which holds everything together." Leon wrote that Trump rescinding Paul Weiss's order "in full" after it struck a deal shows that he intended the orders "to stand or fall as a whole." "A gumbo is served and eaten with all the ingredients together, and so too must the sections of the Order be addressed together," he wrote. The judge also made clear that the gumbo is spicy. "As explained in this Memorandum Opinion, this gumbo gives the Court heartburn," he wrote.
Middle East Eye
20-05-2025
- Business
- Middle East Eye
King's College Cambridge to divest millions from 'occupation' and arms industry
One of the University of Cambridge's largest colleges has decided to divest from the arms industry and companies complicit in "the occupation of Ukraine and Palestinian territories", following months of student protests. King's College Cambridge, founded by Henry VI in 1441, announced this week that its governing body has agreed to "adopt a responsible investment policy" by the end of the calendar year. As of March 2023, the institution invested £2.2m ($2.94m) in arms companies including Lockheed Martin, Korea Aerospace, and BAE Systems. The college told its members on Tuesday that under the new policy, its financial investments will exclude companies that "are involved in activities generally recognised as illegal or contravening global norms, such as occupation". Its investments will also exclude companies that "produce military and nuclear weapons, weapons restricted by international treaty, or companies that produce key or dedicated components of such weapons". New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters King's has become the first Oxford or Cambridge college to take such measures, following months of protests by students at the college. The college said that the new policy "builds on wide-ranging discussions within the college about its investments and its values, prompted by the occupation of Ukraine and Palestinian territories". 'A result of sustained pressure' Student group King's Cambridge 4 Palestine said: "We welcome King's College's decision to commit to divestment, that came as a result of sustained pressure from KC4P and the Cambridge for Palestine Coalition as a whole. "KC4P implore the university and other colleges to follow the example set by King's, although the decision comes far too late for the thousands of Palestinians who have been starved, tortured and killed at the hands of the Israeli state." Cambridge University is made up of 31 self-governing colleges which operate autonomously, including in their financial investments. Trinity College Cambridge 'misled' students over Israel arms investments Read More » Many colleges have faced protests over their investments in the past 18 months. A protest encampment demanding transparency about the university's own investments and divestment from companies complicit in Israel's war on Gaza was set up by the student group Cambridge for Palestine last May. In July, Cambridge committed to funding opportunities for Palestinian academics and students to study at the university and pledged to establish a working group, including student representatives, to review its investments. In response, Cambridge for Palestine ended the encampment. But students accused the university in November of "stalling" on its commitments and resumed the protests, which turned into occupations of Senate House and Greenwich House, two university management buildings. In February this year the university was granted a High Court order blocking protests related to Israel and Palestine on key university sites until the end of July. An open letter signed by hundreds of students and members of staff at Cambridge in February condemned the university's application as an "assault on freedom of expression". Middle East Eye revealed last year that Trinity, the university's wealthiest college, had $78,089 invested in Elbit Systems, Israel's largest arms company, which produces 85 percent of the drones and land-based equipment used by the Israeli army. Trinity students reported in May, after months of protests targeting the college, that they had been told it would divest from all arms companies. However, the college refused to comment on its investments, and freedom of information requests, seen by MEE late last year, revealed that the college continued to maintain investments in arms companies. In November, the college's master insisted that Trinity had "no interest in divesting from arms companies".
