But who would replace him? I can only think of a couple of possibilities that I’d fancy.

Sorry to hear about your grandmother. A friend who went along with DNR for her father said it wasn’t so simple … did it mean don’t treat him for, say, flu? At what point should treatment be withheld? A moral dilemma. (Me previously Gung Ho about assisted death: since Leadbeater et al, not so).

I can see a case for majoritarian preferential and double-ballot systems, though I prefer moderate forms of PR. But I really don't see what the intellectually respectable case, compatible with recent empirical evidence, for first-past-the-post is now. There was at least an argument to be made once.

Harold, king of England, would have been 750 years old (or whatever) today. Happy birthday Harold.

Hmm the last one. Now explain Mannerism. (Don’t mind the decoding of symbols though).

Banning holidays in Europe would be a good start. Help their cause no end.

Can you imagine? No-one could speak. Every word scrutinised by the new anti-lying department. Every day a tribunal day.

What happened in the end?

Yes. Their idea of supporting them meant encouraging them to starve in full knowledge that blackmail of sorts is a very weak strategy for change indeed. Never worked yet anyway.

Have the three kings been to yours then? I’m expecting them tomorrow.