Best Of

FPT:

"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html

Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.

The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.

It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?

What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.

It is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.

Agree with this. We are continually changing the style and look ofbour bank notes - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. I don't see any issue at all with changing a picture on a banknote for a decade or two.

Morning all. Raining, our at least drizzling here. What's it doing at Lords; not suitable for cricket here; if this keeps up the local game will be "rained off".

On (this) topic when I was young banknotes had fancy designs, which showed the value, except, as fas as I recall for the £5 which was a large piece of tissuey paper with lots of writing on it. Must admit I rarely saw one If there was a banknote of greater value I never saw one.

And anyway we'll none of us use banknotes for much longer, except in 'dubious circumstances'. I suspect that before long the possession of large sums of 'cash money' will be a cause for suspicion!

Some UK banknotes already use nature:

FPT:

"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html

Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.

The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.

It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?

What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.

It is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.

Agree with this. We are continually changing the style and look ofbour bank notes - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. I don't see any issue at all with changing a picture on a banknote for a decade or two.

Morning all. Raining, our at least drizzling here. What's it doing at Lords; not suitable for cricket here; if this keeps up the local game will be "rained off".

On (this) topic when I was young banknotes had fancy designs, which showed the value, except, as fas as I recall for the £5 which was a large piece of tissuey paper with lots of writing on it. Must admit I rarely saw one If there was a banknote of greater value I never saw one.

And anyway we'll none of us use banknotes for much longer, except in 'dubious circumstances'. I suspect that before long the possession of large sums of 'cash money' will be a cause for suspicion!

Cloudy. Off on and on drizzle in Greenwich. Lords would at my guess be a further seven miles west - or about 10 stops on the Jubilee. Ideal conditions for skittling out the remaining seven wickets before lunch.

FPT:

"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html

Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.

The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.

It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?

What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.

It is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.

Agree with this. We are continually changing the style and look ofbour bank notes - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. I don't see any issue at all with changing a picture on a banknote for a decade or two.

Morning all. Raining, our at least drizzling here. What's it doing at Lords; not suitable for cricket here; if this keeps up the local game will be "rained off".

On (this) topic when I was young banknotes had fancy designs, which showed the value, except, as fas as I recall for the £5 which was a large piece of tissuey paper with lots of writing on it. Must admit I rarely saw one If there was a banknote of greater value I never saw one.

And anyway we'll none of us use banknotes for much longer, except in 'dubious circumstances'. I suspect that before long the possession of large sums of 'cash money' will be a cause for suspicion!

FPT:

"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html

Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.

The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.

It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?

What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.

You will not be surprised that I disagree slightly.

The practice is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures. Rather this is an attempt to fabricate a Potemkin tradition out of whole cloth in order to have something to complain about.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than indulge in his displacement activity of making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.

(Edited)

O/T with apologies for diverting a thread right away but the Guardian have now published their readers' list of 100 greatest novels and it looks a lot better to me than the authors' and critics' list from a few weeks ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/ng-interactive/2026/jun/06/readers-top-100-novels-of-all-time

In general it looks like a list where it is safer to choose a book from it and you won't end up hating the experience of reading the book.

But fecking Middlemarch is still second. And To Kill A Mockingbird at number five?

I also think the list still lacks breadth. Three Austen novels, Two by Orwell. Multiple Dickens. The list would be a lot more interesting if it was limited to one book per author.