Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
The Tories didn't put England into lockdown. Anyone genuinely think if Labour were in power that they wouldn't have? The silence from Labour on a lockdown was smart politics as they can't have it pinned on them that they called for one.
In Scotland and Wales where they did implement some lockdown aspects will the SNP and Welsh Labour be punished for it if, as now seems fairly likely, it was unnecessary?
There are some people who are deeply anti-restrictions, but probably not many. Looking at the Wikipedia graph of all the polls, it looks like the really low Conservative ratings we saw for a bit were down to churn between Con and RefUK, and once it became clear that Boris wasn't going to go beyond Plan B, those voters returned to the blue column.
That 3 - 5 percent matters a lot to the Conservatives, they really need to keep them onboard. But apart from having some rhetorical fun with this, I'm not sure it will affect the Con-Lab/SNP battleground much.
No but where those 3-5% go could make the difference between Starmer having most seats and not needing the SNP if they stay home or go RefUK as they were before Christmas or the Conservatives being largest party in a hung parliament and Starmer needing the SNP to become PM if they go back to Con as they have now. Which also means he likely could not get England only legislation through as the SNP would abstain on that
The Tories didn't put England into lockdown. Anyone genuinely think if Labour were in power that they wouldn't have? The silence from Labour on a lockdown was smart politics as they can't have it pinned on them that they called for one.
In Scotland and Wales where they did implement some lockdown aspects will the SNP and Welsh Labour be punished for it if, as now seems fairly likely, it was unnecessary?
It seems pretty clear Starmer as PM would have bowed to any pressure from SAGE and DoH and locked us down. Indeed, it is likely we would never have come out of last winter's lockdown properly.
Indeed. We would have had the standard western European response of semi-permanent NPIs. For all of their many, many faults I'm not worried about the Tories going down that path. The 100 have seen off that threat, I couldn't trust any Labour MPs to stand up to the leadership in the same way that the 100 Tories did. Too many of them want to be "on the right side of history" to borrow a phrase from earlier today and don't see the cost of lockdown.
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
Was it "It really is time to move on from Corbyn"? *
* With Diane Abbott responsible for the counting.
It was patriotic, security and err err err drinks water err err respect 🙄
There you go
What a Political Genius with his finger on the pulse
As long as he has a really massive flag behind him wherever he goes, and takes the odd selfie with the army, navy and air force that does actually seem to match up with what is working for politicians of today.
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
Welcome to the dark side, Roger.
It shouldn't be sides. People should say what they believe and call out nonsense on either "side" of the debates. The Mirren story is nonsense that does need challenging, the other one irrelevant fluff imo.
The Tories didn't put England into lockdown. Anyone genuinely think if Labour were in power that they wouldn't have? The silence from Labour on a lockdown was smart politics as they can't have it pinned on them that they called for one.
In Scotland and Wales where they did implement some lockdown aspects will the SNP and Welsh Labour be punished for it if, as now seems fairly likely, it was unnecessary?
It seems pretty clear Starmer as PM would have bowed to any pressure from SAGE and DoH and locked us down. Indeed, it is likely we would never have come out of last winter's lockdown properly.
Indeed. We would have had the standard western European response of semi-permanent NPIs. For all of their many, many faults I'm not worried about the Tories going down that path. The 100 have seen off that threat, I couldn't trust any Labour MPs to stand up to the leadership in the same way that the 100 Tories did. Too many of them want to be "on the right side of history" to borrow a phrase from earlier today and don't see the cost of lockdown.
Although it is worth reflecting that the semi-permanent lockdown Lab MPs would have ushered in would now be tanking the economy even more than it is already struggling. The public debt would be off the scale. And under a Labour government thereby reinforcing the old saw that they always end up bankrupting the country.
Was it "It really is time to move on from Corbyn"? *
* With Diane Abbott responsible for the counting.
It was patriotic, security and err err err drinks water err err respect 🙄
There you go
What a Political Genius with his finger on the pulse
As long as he has a really massive flag behind him wherever he goes, and takes the odd selfie with the army, navy and air force that does actually seem to match up with what is working for politicians of today.
Aye but fans of the flag have a wide choice it is very unlikely SKS will make their final two.
Any link to the study? Most of the story is paywalled for me and I'm always interested in mask studies for Covid (as an epidemiologist, because estimating efficacy is an interesting epidemiological problem - there's lots of confounding, potential misclassification bias and the benefits are at the population level more than the individual level)
Thanks, interesting approach and makes sense given the lack of data for a more conventional multivariable model. I've done plenty of propensity matching, but not come across this particular variation before. I like its elegance.
On the original Times story, the results are not statistically significant, but the point estimates are different over a short (two-three week) period. Absences were 20% higher (weighted) in the no mask group compared to the mask group (again, not significant evidence though). Different decreases in absences in the goups. Could add up to a substantial difference over a longer period. Would be interesting to see a larger study over a longer period. Also, the analysis is on absence rate of pupils. Absence rate of teachers would also be a relevant measure (but with fewer teachers, a larger sample would likely be needed to find anything interesting).
Whether masks are worth the downsides is of course a different question. There may be better options for schools (e.g. ventilation/air purification).
[Added some edits to clarify my viewpoint - what I wrote originally looked a bit too pro-masks-in-schools which is not really my view]
Was it "It really is time to move on from Corbyn"? *
* With Diane Abbott responsible for the counting.
It was patriotic, security and err err err drinks water err err respect 🙄
There you go
What a Political Genius with his finger on the pulse
As long as he has a really massive flag behind him wherever he goes, and takes the odd selfie with the army, navy and air force that does actually seem to match up with what is working for politicians of today.
Aye but fans of the flag have a wide choice it is very unlikely SKS will make their final two.
Perhaps he should learn from Prescotts two jags and have one either side to become SKS 2 Flags?
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
I find the rise of the idea that only certain people can play certain roles is ridiculous. All actors are playing roles, that's the whole job. You can say that people shouldn't 'black-up' to play a person of colour, but why then do actors try to look like the person they are playing?
Any link to the study? Most of the story is paywalled for me and I'm always interested in mask studies for Covid (as an epidemiologist, because estimating efficacy is an interesting epidemiological problem - there's lots of confounding, potential misclassification bias and the benefits are at the population level more than the individual level)
Thanks, interesting approach and makes sense given the lack of data for a more conventional multivariable model. I've done plenty of propensity matching, but not come across this particular variation before. I like its elegance.
On the original Times story, the results are not statistically significant, but the point estimates are different over a short (two-three week) period. Absences were 20% higher (weighted) in the no mask group compared to the mask group (again, not significant evidence though). Different decreases in absences in the goups. Could add up to a substantial difference over a longer period. Would be interesting to see a larger study over a longer period. Also, the analysis is on absence rate of pupils. Absence rate of teachers would also be a relevant measure (but with fewer teachers, a larger sample would likely be needed to find anything interesting).
Whether masks are worth the downsides is of course a different question. There may be better options for schools (e.g. ventilation/air purification).
[Added some edits to clarify my viewpoint - what I wrote originally looked a bit too pro-masks-in-schools which is not really my view]
"In Germany, school-related NPIs, in particular masking, have been successful in mitigating the spread of the virus among both students and teachers."
I can believe that there is some reduction from masks. However the question that MUST be asked is does the reduction in spread justify the harms/effects of mask wearing?
Very very quiet last night, running club had the pool table uninterrupted for the hour or so we were there. Though the start of January can't be too busy on a weeknight normally.
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
I find the rise of the idea that only certain people can play certain roles is ridiculous. All actors are playing roles, that's the whole job. You can say that people shouldn't 'black-up' to play a person of colour, but why then do actors try to look like the person they are playing?
Acting should just be outlawed. Clearly playing someone else is completely offensive to the character being portrayed.
Was it "It really is time to move on from Corbyn"? *
* With Diane Abbott responsible for the counting.
It was patriotic, security and err err err drinks water err err respect 🙄
There you go
What a Political Genius with his finger on the pulse
As long as he has a really massive flag behind him wherever he goes, and takes the odd selfie with the army, navy and air force that does actually seem to match up with what is working for politicians of today.
Aye but fans of the flag have a wide choice it is very unlikely SKS will make their final two.
Perhaps he should learn from Prescotts two jags and have one either side to become SKS 2 Flags?
Or learn from Boris and become SKS 2 shags (before breakfast)
Any link to the study? Most of the story is paywalled for me and I'm always interested in mask studies for Covid (as an epidemiologist, because estimating efficacy is an interesting epidemiological problem - there's lots of confounding, potential misclassification bias and the benefits are at the population level more than the individual level)
Thanks, interesting approach and makes sense given the lack of data for a more conventional multivariable model. I've done plenty of propensity matching, but not come across this particular variation before. I like its elegance.
On the original Times story, the results are not statistically significant, but the point estimates are different over a short (two-three week) period. Absences were 20% higher (weighted) in the no mask group compared to the mask group (again, not significant evidence though). Different decreases in absences in the goups. Could add up to a substantial difference over a longer period. Would be interesting to see a larger study over a longer period. Also, the analysis is on absence rate of pupils. Absence rate of teachers would also be a relevant measure (but with fewer teachers, a larger sample would likely be needed to find anything interesting).
Whether masks are worth the downsides is of course a different question. There may be better options for schools (e.g. ventilation/air purification).
[Added some edits to clarify my viewpoint - what I wrote originally looked a bit too pro-masks-in-schools which is not really my view]
"In Germany, school-related NPIs, in particular masking, have been successful in mitigating the spread of the virus among both students and teachers."
I can believe that there is some reduction from masks. However the question that MUST be asked is does the reduction in spread justify the harms/effects of mask wearing?
And, once again, the more pertinent question is what do we gain, at this point in time, from preventing the spread of the virus? Everyone who wants to be vaccinated is, anyone can walk up and get a booster dose. To what end are we preventing the spread of the virus? No one has really answered this question other than to say "yeah but people could die" without actually saying which people could die and whether or not they'd die tomorrow or 3 months from now.
Could put it to I'm still standing by Elton (also borrowing Ishmael's suggested slogan)
You know I'm not Corbyn, better than he ever was Looking like a true survivor, not acting like a little kid I'm still standing after all this time Picking up the pieces of my party without him on my mind
I'm Not Corbyn (Not An Antisemite) I'm Not Corbyn (Not An Antisemite)
Edit: but on the original question, no - not a clue. But if SKS eventually wins then it will be through a combination of not being Corbyn and also not being Johnson. Vision and policies would be nice, but what can you do?
It is a fact of political life that most people vote negatively. Brexit fanatics want you to believe that people voted to "Get Brexit Done", and maybe some did, but most really voted to "Keep Corbyn Out".
Only the really simple minded should by now not have realised the mortal danger for Western society to be so economically interdependent on China, and specifically energy dependent on Russia.
There are two separate points here, but the second one is the easier: Western Europe has never been less dependent on Russia.
In the old days (say 2007), apart from a few small fields, there were exactly three places Europe got natural gas from: Norway, the UK (which was in serious decline) and Russia.
Now, the UK has disappeared, but the gas supply situation has completely changed. If you were Centrica in 2007, and you wanted to enter into a gas supply contract, there was Statoil in Norway and Gazprom in Russia... and that chap from BG who was jumping up and down and gesticulating about LNG, but what did he know?
Fourteen years later, the US has gone from natural gas importer to massive exporter. Qatar has built more LNG export capacity in the last two decades than existed in 2000. PNG and Peru have started exporting gas. And Australia is maybe 5% into development of the Northwest Shelf.
That chap at Centrica now has a dozen firms offering him long term supply contracts at good prices.
I used to be one of the largest energy investors in London. There are another two dozen countries with massive gas fields who simply can't get funding, because buyers in the West have had plenty of options. (Mozambique's discoveries are enormous: it could be the Saudi Arabia of gas.)
The UK, Italy and the Baltic states were first. We built LNG import facilities so we could bring natural gas in from these new exporters. But everyone is now jumping on the train. If I were doing my old job, I would be salivating at the opportunity to finance Hamburg LNG, because those buyers can't trust Russia any more. (And, for the record, we in the UK have been complicit too: the pipeline may go through Germany, but there have been no shortage of UK purchasers of Nordstream 2 gas.)
Simply: LNG changes the world. Russia's whole hold on the West disappears when they can simply order cargoes from the US, Australia and Qatar.
Thr thing i think people (including myself) find hard to grasp is the sheer mind bending capacity of cargo ships.
It seems intuitively completely impossible for us to be able to transpprt sufficient gas by ship to power us but we totally can.
The maritime industry is truly astonishing, and almost totally absent from the general public’s consciousness. Bizarre.
If you know any youngsters looking for a great career, give them a helpful nudge.
Agreed. One of my best friends who got only a few Highers has had an amazing career in the Merchant Navy (ETO).
At 26 has a beautiful house, posh car etc, enough cash to invest and to live off. Only a broken arm and multiple STIs to show for it.
The broken bones and STIs are however just an optional extra.
The fact the entire crew have exactly the same portfolio of STIs is a concern.
The broken arm was a result of a drunken attempt at the dirty dancing lift during a storm.
One of many reasons the industry is trying to attract more women.
“Today, women represent only 1.2% percent of the global seafarer workforce as per the BIMCO/ICS 2021 Seafarer Workforce Report. This represents a positive trend in gender balance, with the report estimating 24,059 women serving as seafarers, which is a 45.8% increase compared with the 2015 report.
Within this historically male dominated industry, IMO has been making a concerted effort to help the industry move forward and support women to achieve a representation that is in keeping with twenty-first century expectations.”
Omicron is completely loose in Australia. Their cases are almost at the levels in the UK. The exception is Western Australia which is basically at zero Covid with just a few cases caught at the state border.
It is become more clear that those countries that have implemented lockdowns in the face of Omicron have only slightly delayed the spread. I am pleased the government held the line on not another lockdown. They must have been under immense pressure from some quarters to do so.
Next week the pressure will increase because kids are back in school and the headline rate of infection will be terrible. Hopefully the government is able to bat the scientists away again.
There might be evidence of the pressure on London hospitals easing next week. That will then be a sign of the end of the Omicron wave approaching, and the pressure levels that will need to be handled in other regions.
Would think that would be sound reason to decide against further restrictions.
Shocking videos from Almaty. Rarely have I had more humble and welcoming hosts than in Kazakhstan.
As for China and Taiwan, whether China is successful there rather depends on whether you think this is the Chinese Century.
I look at the foreign policy behaviour of China and Russia and see a lashing out from positions of severe and terminal domestic weakness. The trouble is that the West isn’t in good shape either.
China has always been prepared to play the long game with everything it does. The CCP is not slaughtering the Uighers, it’s slowly and patiently tilting the demographic trends its way and dismantling the Uigher cultural heritage in favour of Hanification. Equally the policy with Taiwan has always been similar. Steady as she goes. It’s blown of course recently but a growing economic blockade of the island would do the trick eventually.
Because does the West really have the strength and solidarity to do much about it? Well for starters it’s not going to sink a Chinese carrier group over it.
Someone mentioned the selective default on bonds held by the Chinese government. Ok. But what’s the worth of the assets (both physical and IP) held by corporate America in China? And corporate Europe for that matter? Are we prepared to switch off exports to China? Penury for Germany lies down that road. And switch off imports?? No.
Only the really simple minded should by now not have realised the mortal danger for Western society to be so economically interdependent on China, and specifically energy dependent on Russia. You’d like to think power brokers in the West are quietly figuring out how to undo it, piece by piece. And reminding Xi that all their fates are tied together. But we all know they’re not.
So where does that leave us? At a guess, in a period where it looks like the globe is tilting on its axis eastwards and obituaries will be written for Western democracy and Pax Americana. And at a hope, shortly thereafter in a new era where the innovation and optimism of the Western system puts us back on course as the contradictions of the autocrats implode.
Might not work out that way though. We might be seeing the decay of all the great empires simultaneously with civilisation about to enter a sustained period of regression in technology, prosperity and population. I’d be tempted to give that scenario greater odds than a global Pax Sinica frankly. All fascinating viewing from those UAPs no doubt.
Can anyone think of a more ridiculous time to have cut our ties with the EU or have in power the people who orchestrated it?
Well given the fact that the Germans are now sucking up to the Chinese and excusing all their crimes I think it is a bloody good time not to be associated with the EU.
That argument might carry more weight if
1. It was true 2. The British state’s pals were all squeaky clean
1. It is true 2. My comment was in reply to Rogers specifically about China. Your whataboutism is irrelevant. Just like most of the rest of your views.
I resort to whataboutism, you resort to ad hominemism. Lovely to see you taking the high moral ground. It really engenders your assertion fantastic weight and gravitas.
Any link to the study? Most of the story is paywalled for me and I'm always interested in mask studies for Covid (as an epidemiologist, because estimating efficacy is an interesting epidemiological problem - there's lots of confounding, potential misclassification bias and the benefits are at the population level more than the individual level)
Thanks, interesting approach and makes sense given the lack of data for a more conventional multivariable model. I've done plenty of propensity matching, but not come across this particular variation before. I like its elegance.
On the original Times story, the results are not statistically significant, but the point estimates are different over a short (two-three week) period. Absences were 20% higher (weighted) in the no mask group compared to the mask group (again, not significant evidence though). Different decreases in absences in the goups. Could add up to a substantial difference over a longer period. Would be interesting to see a larger study over a longer period. Also, the analysis is on absence rate of pupils. Absence rate of teachers would also be a relevant measure (but with fewer teachers, a larger sample would likely be needed to find anything interesting).
Whether masks are worth the downsides is of course a different question. There may be better options for schools (e.g. ventilation/air purification).
[Added some edits to clarify my viewpoint - what I wrote originally looked a bit too pro-masks-in-schools which is not really my view]
"In Germany, school-related NPIs, in particular masking, have been successful in mitigating the spread of the virus among both students and teachers."
I can believe that there is some reduction from masks. However the question that MUST be asked is does the reduction in spread justify the harms/effects of mask wearing?
And, once again, the more pertinent question is what do we gain, at this point in time, from preventing the spread of the virus? Everyone who wants to be vaccinated is, anyone can walk up and get a booster dose. To what end are we preventing the spread of the virus? No one has really answered this question other than to say "yeah but people could die" without actually saying which people could die and whether or not they'd die tomorrow or 3 months from now.
Yep. In terms of transition to 'living with covid' people are clearly in different places. You (I think) and I are ready to return most things to normal. Test for covid at hospital to diagnose. Drop routine testing. End isolation but encourage people with symptoms to stay home (WFH if possile). No more masks, but encourage good building design and better ventilation (good for us, anyway).
Others have not cottoned on that covid cannot be eliminated, and still cling to the idea that with just enough masks, lockdowns etc we can be free. Not going to happen.
People will also need to think about their own personal risk. When I was being treated for leukeamia it made sense to think about activities that might increase the risk of illness when more susceptible. Now not so much. This is NOT a charter that says 'I don't care about vulnerable people', but an inevitable fact of life.
Phil changed his name. Bartholomew something. Still spouts the same politically incoherent and inconsistent nonsense so is instantly recognisable.
And helpfully has the same avatar as before.
I was also wondering what had happened to CHB.
CHB has taken a break from posting I believe. He had started to get very irritating and calling people out. He made some ludicrous claims that he had not been calling for lockdowns, when thats all he's done since omicron.
Any link to the study? Most of the story is paywalled for me and I'm always interested in mask studies for Covid (as an epidemiologist, because estimating efficacy is an interesting epidemiological problem - there's lots of confounding, potential misclassification bias and the benefits are at the population level more than the individual level)
Thanks, interesting approach and makes sense given the lack of data for a more conventional multivariable model. I've done plenty of propensity matching, but not come across this particular variation before. I like its elegance.
On the original Times story, the results are not statistically significant, but the point estimates are different over a short (two-three week) period. Absences were 20% higher (weighted) in the no mask group compared to the mask group (again, not significant evidence though). Different decreases in absences in the goups. Could add up to a substantial difference over a longer period. Would be interesting to see a larger study over a longer period. Also, the analysis is on absence rate of pupils. Absence rate of teachers would also be a relevant measure (but with fewer teachers, a larger sample would likely be needed to find anything interesting).
Whether masks are worth the downsides is of course a different question. There may be better options for schools (e.g. ventilation/air purification).
[Added some edits to clarify my viewpoint - what I wrote originally looked a bit too pro-masks-in-schools which is not really my view]
"In Germany, school-related NPIs, in particular masking, have been successful in mitigating the spread of the virus among both students and teachers."
I can believe that there is some reduction from masks. However the question that MUST be asked is does the reduction in spread justify the harms/effects of mask wearing?
And, once again, the more pertinent question is what do we gain, at this point in time, from preventing the spread of the virus? Everyone who wants to be vaccinated is, anyone can walk up and get a booster dose. To what end are we preventing the spread of the virus? No one has really answered this question other than to say "yeah but people could die" without actually saying which people could die and whether or not they'd die tomorrow or 3 months from now.
I am inclined to agree with you. I try not to be blasé on the basis of my anecdotal experience, but if there is strong evidence that the vast majority of vaccinated people get a mild cold like reaction then we are going to have to move to the "live with it" phase with perhaps large facilities attached to hospitals for the loons who think they can be NoVax Djokovic
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
I find the rise of the idea that only certain people can play certain roles is ridiculous. All actors are playing roles, that's the whole job. You can say that people shouldn't 'black-up' to play a person of colour, but why then do actors try to look like the person they are playing?
These things are tricky, as evidenced by the bemused reaction of many to the idea of a female Santa Claus or indeed a female God. In principle, plays and movies will normally be about how people behave rather than specific people, so a white Othello or a black Romeo shouldn't be impossible. But it does get harder when a specific person is being portrayed - clearly Golda Meir couldn't be sensibly played by a man, of instance. So it comes down to whether the fact that she was an Israeli leader means that someone playing her needs to be Jewish to understand her feelnigs. I wouldn't think so - it might be helpful, but not essential, any more than someone playing a coal miner needs to have mined coal themselves - they just need to be good at thinking themselves into it.
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
I find the rise of the idea that only certain people can play certain roles is ridiculous. All actors are playing roles, that's the whole job. You can say that people shouldn't 'black-up' to play a person of colour, but why then do actors try to look like the person they are playing?
On ethnic group casting, I'm broadly supportive of casting from the 'correct' group. If you have a black character who needs to look black then I'd be pretty surprised if the person best suited to play that character, including being convincingly black, wasn't black.
There are some questions though - does your character have to be from a particular ethnic group? If it's a well known historical person then quite possibly. If the persons ethnic group is relevant to the role (e.g. a film covering civil rights in the US) then yes, you probably do. But in some other cases it doesn't really matter - take Dev Patel in The Personal History of David Copperfield. Fictional story, he was obviously envisaged as white, but who cares - it's not relevant to the story. Similarly, I'd be completely relaxed about a black (or Asian) Bond. I can understand, for historical and perhaps contemporary reasons of inequality that a white person playing a fictional character who happened to be black might not go down well. For gay, straight, disabled etc I'm really not bothered as long as the actors do a good job (if every gay character was played by a straight man being incredibly camp then I'd have an issue with that).
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
As Putin ready his troops for battle, ours are sent to prop up the NHS.
Not sure what to feel about that.
Certainly doesn't feel like 'Global Britain'! But then I don't see what we could do in Khazakstan, useful or otherwise!
Of all the vacuous slogans dreamed by this government GLOBAL BRITAIN is the one that makes people groan.
....And thanks to Liz Truss's ownership of it she has ruled herself out of ever being taken seriously. It makes Milliband's 'Edstone' look profound
She's fucking ridiculous even by tory standards.
As a non-military man, I have to ask what's ridiculous about that photo?
Passengers normally can't wait get to get shot of the helmet and survival rig not stand around with the visor down getting their photo taken next to a couple of chubby ATOs. (Or whatever they are called these days).
I flew with Blair on a Crab Air Chinook from Basra to the Big O (they wanted FAA on board to handle the radios) and he politely declined the bone dome. He was shitting himself though.
What is the point of a Liz Truss photo-op if you can't tell it is Liz Truss?
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
We rarely agree but on this I completely agree
Indeed with the trek to the South Pole I was astonished when they referred to her colour rather than her fantastic achievement
As Putin ready his troops for battle, ours are sent to prop up the NHS.
Not sure what to feel about that.
Certainly doesn't feel like 'Global Britain'! But then I don't see what we could do in Khazakstan, useful or otherwise!
Of all the vacuous slogans dreamed by this government GLOBAL BRITAIN is the one that makes people groan.
....And thanks to Liz Truss's ownership of it she has ruled herself out of ever being taken seriously. It makes Milliband's 'Edstone' look profound
She's fucking ridiculous even by tory standards.
As a non-military man, I have to ask what's ridiculous about that photo?
Passengers normally can't wait get to get shot of the helmet and survival rig not stand around with the visor down getting their photo taken next to a couple of chubby ATOs. (Or whatever they are called these days).
I flew with Blair on a Crab Air Chinook from Basra to the Big O (they wanted FAA on board to handle the radios) and he politely declined the bone dome. He was shitting himself though.
What is the point of a Liz Truss photo-op if you can't tell it is Liz Truss?
Perhaps it was Rishi Sunak in drag. They are approximately the same size.
I know this is a local and may have already been referred to but in these perilous times for the conservative party should labour supporters be voting Lib Dem
Only the really simple minded should by now not have realised the mortal danger for Western society to be so economically interdependent on China, and specifically energy dependent on Russia.
There are two separate points here, but the second one is the easier: Western Europe has never been less dependent on Russia.
In the old days (say 2007), apart from a few small fields, there were exactly three places Europe got natural gas from: Norway, the UK (which was in serious decline) and Russia.
Now, the UK has disappeared, but the gas supply situation has completely changed. If you were Centrica in 2007, and you wanted to enter into a gas supply contract, there was Statoil in Norway and Gazprom in Russia... and that chap from BG who was jumping up and down and gesticulating about LNG, but what did he know?
Fourteen years later, the US has gone from natural gas importer to massive exporter. Qatar has built more LNG export capacity in the last two decades than existed in 2000. PNG and Peru have started exporting gas. And Australia is maybe 5% into development of the Northwest Shelf.
That chap at Centrica now has a dozen firms offering him long term supply contracts at good prices.
I used to be one of the largest energy investors in London. There are another two dozen countries with massive gas fields who simply can't get funding, because buyers in the West have had plenty of options. (Mozambique's discoveries are enormous: it could be the Saudi Arabia of gas.)
The UK, Italy and the Baltic states were first. We built LNG import facilities so we could bring natural gas in from these new exporters. But everyone is now jumping on the train. If I were doing my old job, I would be salivating at the opportunity to finance Hamburg LNG, because those buyers can't trust Russia any more. (And, for the record, we in the UK have been complicit too: the pipeline may go through Germany, but there have been no shortage of UK purchasers of Nordstream 2 gas.)
Simply: LNG changes the world. Russia's whole hold on the West disappears when they can simply order cargoes from the US, Australia and Qatar.
Thr thing i think people (including myself) find hard to grasp is the sheer mind bending capacity of cargo ships.
It seems intuitively completely impossible for us to be able to transpprt sufficient gas by ship to power us but we totally can.
The maritime industry is truly astonishing, and almost totally absent from the general public’s consciousness. Bizarre.
If you know any youngsters looking for a great career, give them a helpful nudge.
Agreed. One of my best friends who got only a few Highers has had an amazing career in the Merchant Navy (ETO).
At 26 has a beautiful house, posh car etc, enough cash to invest and to live off. Only a broken arm and multiple STIs to show for it.
The broken bones and STIs are however just an optional extra.
We had a diminutive Cardiffian dabber on Invincible who had FOUR separate and distinct STIs after that famous run ashore in Bangkok.
Makes you proud.
Was he called Taff? 🙂
I think there is Lord Hattersley anecdote of going up in a fighter aircraft, and he hated every second of it?
The Tories didn't put England into lockdown. Anyone genuinely think if Labour were in power that they wouldn't have? The silence from Labour on a lockdown was smart politics as they can't have it pinned on them that they called for one.
In Scotland and Wales where they did implement some lockdown aspects will the SNP and Welsh Labour be punished for it if, as now seems fairly likely, it was unnecessary?
Labour's position before Christmas and in the summer has moved me further away from voting Labour. And the Conservatives position has moved me closer to voting Tory (although under Johnson, that's more or less in the same sense that orbital variations move Pluto closer to Earth - the distance is still vast!). LDs get some points too.
None of which matters, of course, given I'm in a safe Tory seat.
The former Braintree constituency, regarded as 'safe' for Tony Newton, went Labour in 1977 on a swing of almost 18% Brooks Newmark won it back in 2005, of course.
Well, there is that.
Would be a hell of a turnaround here, though. 18% or so, again and against a Tory majority of all votes, so not just a case of tactical voting needed. In the rural parts of the constituency, I'm pretty sure if you prick them they bleed blue.
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
Not often I agree with you Roger (I don't mean to sound rude, we just have different worldviews - nothing wrong with that), but I agree with every word of this. (I must admit I'm slightly surprised to hear a lefty such as yourself saying this sort of thing - I had always assumed this sort of thing came from lefties. Perhaps - hopefully - I was wrong.) And I probably consider this a more important point of agreement than any of the issues on which we disagree.
I know this is a local and may have already been referred to but in these perilous times for the conservative party should labour supporters be voting Lib Dem
Just as I stand in a check-in queue feeling annoyed by and superior to the people in front of me who don’t have their covid documents in order, I get a text from the hotel telling me I need a negative test to check in — special rules in Portugal for Christmas and New Year. Ends on the 10th, so I can’t travel on to the second location without another test until then - a rule I had failed to notice… So furiously rebooking hotels now. That will teach me to be smug…
I'm not convinced about Sunak for next PM. It's the economy ... and the economy isn't going to be doing him any favours through 2022. A substantial part of this has been exacerbated by Johnson's decision to park his tank on Labour's lawn with a high spend, high tax regime. Throw in the cost of living crisis, national debt, rising inflation etc. and I wouldn't wish to be in Sunak's very expensive shoes.
And that's the last thing. A super-rich billionaire and his wife in a time of national austerity? No thanks. Not even the tory membership will swallow that one.
Also interested in views on the Russian sub bumping into HMS Northumberland.
Not being a sundodger I have no particular insight to offer other than it happens (or nearly happens!) on a regular basis.
We often see warships offshore here, and my local contact in the Admiralty tells me they are usually on the trail of Russian subs, and the Russian subs regularly try to tap into the communication cables that run from the island across the Channel to France. What they are testing, or trying to discover, I do not know.
Getting ready to tap or cut should it prove necessary, I would think.
Any link to the study? Most of the story is paywalled for me and I'm always interested in mask studies for Covid (as an epidemiologist, because estimating efficacy is an interesting epidemiological problem - there's lots of confounding, potential misclassification bias and the benefits are at the population level more than the individual level)
Thanks, interesting approach and makes sense given the lack of data for a more conventional multivariable model. I've done plenty of propensity matching, but not come across this particular variation before. I like its elegance.
On the original Times story, the results are not statistically significant, but the point estimates are different over a short (two-three week) period. Absences were 20% higher (weighted) in the no mask group compared to the mask group (again, not significant evidence though). Different decreases in absences in the goups. Could add up to a substantial difference over a longer period. Would be interesting to see a larger study over a longer period. Also, the analysis is on absence rate of pupils. Absence rate of teachers would also be a relevant measure (but with fewer teachers, a larger sample would likely be needed to find anything interesting).
Whether masks are worth the downsides is of course a different question. There may be better options for schools (e.g. ventilation/air purification).
[Added some edits to clarify my viewpoint - what I wrote originally looked a bit too pro-masks-in-schools which is not really my view]
"In Germany, school-related NPIs, in particular masking, have been successful in mitigating the spread of the virus among both students and teachers."
I can believe that there is some reduction from masks. However the question that MUST be asked is does the reduction in spread justify the harms/effects of mask wearing?
And, once again, the more pertinent question is what do we gain, at this point in time, from preventing the spread of the virus? Everyone who wants to be vaccinated is, anyone can walk up and get a booster dose. To what end are we preventing the spread of the virus? No one has really answered this question other than to say "yeah but people could die" without actually saying which people could die and whether or not they'd die tomorrow or 3 months from now.
Yep. In terms of transition to 'living with covid' people are clearly in different places. You (I think) and I are ready to return most things to normal. Test for covid at hospital to diagnose. Drop routine testing. End isolation but encourage people with symptoms to stay home (WFH if possile). No more masks, but encourage good building design and better ventilation (good for us, anyway).
Others have not cottoned on that covid cannot be eliminated, and still cling to the idea that with just enough masks, lockdowns etc we can be free. Not going to happen.
People will also need to think about their own personal risk. When I was being treated for leukeamia it made sense to think about activities that might increase the risk of illness when more susceptible. Now not so much. This is NOT a charter that says 'I don't care about vulnerable people', but an inevitable fact of life.
I'd go quite a bit further, I'd say only people with severe symptoms should stay home and let it be their personal choice and I definitely wouldn't bother with expensive retrofitting of ventilation systems. We didn't do it for the flu and COVID looks very much less deadly than the flu in a largely immunised population.
After that I'd leave it up to the individual and companies to decide on work patterns.
I'd also get rid of all testing at the border, we had it with Omicron and it didn't help, by the time wed realised that something was different it was far, far too late. I'd also want to get international agreement on this with the US and EU where COVID rates are broadly similar. Why are we bothering to keep Americans and Europeans out of the UK (and them us) when there's basically no difference in our infection rates.
The only lasting change I'd make is a hard vaccine barrier on entry to the UK. A person must be fully vaccinated with at least one booster dose to enter the UK. No exceptions other than verified medical exemptions notified in advance of travelling. That's not to prevent spread, more to push people into the vaccine funnel.
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
I am reminded of the story that when filming Marathon Man, Dustin Hoffman ran miles and didn't sleep to look suitably ragged.
Laurence Olivier commented - "My dear boy, why don’t you just try acting?”
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than casting around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Any link to the study? Most of the story is paywalled for me and I'm always interested in mask studies for Covid (as an epidemiologist, because estimating efficacy is an interesting epidemiological problem - there's lots of confounding, potential misclassification bias and the benefits are at the population level more than the individual level)
Thanks, interesting approach and makes sense given the lack of data for a more conventional multivariable model. I've done plenty of propensity matching, but not come across this particular variation before. I like its elegance.
On the original Times story, the results are not statistically significant, but the point estimates are different over a short (two-three week) period. Absences were 20% higher (weighted) in the no mask group compared to the mask group (again, not significant evidence though). Different decreases in absences in the goups. Could add up to a substantial difference over a longer period. Would be interesting to see a larger study over a longer period. Also, the analysis is on absence rate of pupils. Absence rate of teachers would also be a relevant measure (but with fewer teachers, a larger sample would likely be needed to find anything interesting).
Whether masks are worth the downsides is of course a different question. There may be better options for schools (e.g. ventilation/air purification).
[Added some edits to clarify my viewpoint - what I wrote originally looked a bit too pro-masks-in-schools which is not really my view]
"In Germany, school-related NPIs, in particular masking, have been successful in mitigating the spread of the virus among both students and teachers."
I can believe that there is some reduction from masks. However the question that MUST be asked is does the reduction in spread justify the harms/effects of mask wearing?
And, once again, the more pertinent question is what do we gain, at this point in time, from preventing the spread of the virus? Everyone who wants to be vaccinated is, anyone can walk up and get a booster dose. To what end are we preventing the spread of the virus? No one has really answered this question other than to say "yeah but people could die" without actually saying which people could die and whether or not they'd die tomorrow or 3 months from now.
Yep. In terms of transition to 'living with covid' people are clearly in different places. You (I think) and I are ready to return most things to normal. Test for covid at hospital to diagnose. Drop routine testing. End isolation but encourage people with symptoms to stay home (WFH if possile). No more masks, but encourage good building design and better ventilation (good for us, anyway).
Others have not cottoned on that covid cannot be eliminated, and still cling to the idea that with just enough masks, lockdowns etc we can be free. Not going to happen.
People will also need to think about their own personal risk. When I was being treated for leukeamia it made sense to think about activities that might increase the risk of illness when more susceptible. Now not so much. This is NOT a charter that says 'I don't care about vulnerable people', but an inevitable fact of life.
As ever, there are 2 arguments for reducing infections even if it only means postponing them:
1. To protect the health system from being overwhelmed. 2. To buy time for more people to be vaccinated (and better treatments to be available). I'm a bit lockdown sceptical/agnostic, but the cost/benefit calculations seem very difficult to make depending on the circumstances. If being boosted makes a big difference to hospitalisation, and millions are being boosted per week then there logically seems to be at least some benefit to slowing the spread.
I have a child who has to wear a mask in primary school (when inside and not eating or drinking). I'm not a big fan, but I just don't know how effective a measure it is, and I also don't know how much harm it is doing to my son - he *seems* to take it in his stride but some children seem to be more badly affected.
But I'm also happy that his schooling hasn't been interrupted by outbreaks or quarantine. Since they started testing in April last year there have been no outbreaks, no cases of known transmission in the school, despite a few individual positive cases turning up among children and staff, and all the classes have kept going. I don't know how much masks have contributed to this. They also keep the windows in the classroom open all the time, plus mechanical ventilation in the classrooms, the different classes don't mix, they have staggered breaks etc.
Omicron will no doubt change things, but I'm hoping that quarantine rules will be dropped/lessened for vaccinated children without symptoms.
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
I am reminded of the story that when filming Marathon Man, Dustin Hoffman ran miles and didn't sleep to look suitably ragged.
Laurence Olivier commented - "My dear boy, why don’t you just try acting?”
I think the point is that opportunity should be given to those best able to represent certain characters e.g. a trans person to play a trans role.
I don't think anyone is denying the capacity of method actors to fill out of character roles.
As for the non-white lady reaching the South Pole I think this is worthy of note in the same way that the Sherpa ascent of K2 in winter was.
Why? Well certain types of exploration and sports have historically been the preserve of white males. Breaking the typecast is notable.
Omicron is completely loose in Australia. Their cases are almost at the levels in the UK. The exception is Western Australia which is basically at zero Covid with just a few cases caught at the state border.
It is become more clear that those countries that have implemented lockdowns in the face of Omicron have only slightly delayed the spread. I am pleased the government held the line on not another lockdown. They must have been under immense pressure from some quarters to do so.
Next week the pressure will increase because kids are back in school and the headline rate of infection will be terrible. Hopefully the government is able to bat the scientists away again.
There might be evidence of the pressure on London hospitals easing next week. That will then be a sign of the end of the Omicron wave approaching, and the pressure levels that will need to be handled in other regions.
Would think that would be sound reason to decide against further restrictions.
We have
Hospital admissions are definitely heading down, in London
After seeing a video of the No 10's recent extraordinary flat refurbishments yesterday. I spotted a couple of portraits which reminded me of the front covers of the books written by George McDonald Fraser chronicling the infamous career of Sir Harry Paget Flashman VC, KCB, KCIE. I wondered why and as a result I spent 30 mins researching the matter on Google. Check out the 3 links below and you will undoubtedly agree there appears to be a strong connection. https://tinyurl.com/flashmanshrine https://tinyurl.com/flashmanbookcovers https://tinyurl.com/pfeffelbastard I wonder if Harry Flashman had an amorous liaison with Hélène Arnous de Rivière who was Boris Johnson's great great grandmother? Or is Lulu Lytle having a laugh at everybody else's enormous expense?
I'm not convinced about Sunak for next PM. It's the economy ... and the economy isn't going to be doing him any favours through 2022. A substantial part of this has been exacerbated by Johnson's decision to park his tank on Labour's lawn with a high spend, high tax regime. Throw in the cost of living crisis, national debt, rising inflation etc. and I wouldn't wish to be in Sunak's very expensive shoes.
And that's the last thing. A super-rich billionaire and his wife in a time of national austerity? No thanks. Not even the tory membership will swallow that one.
As a matter of interest it is his wife's family who are billionaires, and why has his wife anything to do with anything
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
I am reminded of the story that when filming Marathon Man, Dustin Hoffman ran miles and didn't sleep to look suitably ragged.
Laurence Olivier commented - "My dear boy, why don’t you just try acting?”
I think the point is that opportunity should be given to those best able to represent certain characters e.g. a trans person to play a trans role.
I don't think anyone is denying the capacity of method actors to fill out of character roles.
As for the non-white lady reaching the South Pole I think this is worthy of note in the same way that the Sherpa ascent of K2 in winter was.
Why? Well certain types of exploration and sports have historically been the preserve of white males. Breaking the typecast is notable.
I was commenting on the Golda Meir thing more than the South Pole stuff.
The Sherpa thing is interesting - my understanding is that, historically, there was little interest in climbing mountains, locally. That was something the crazy foreigners wanted to do - people die up there. But the younger generations see the most famous bits of their country as being entirely populated in foreigners and their exploits...
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Not sure of the point in mentioning colour at all unless it is relevant in some way and I can't see why it is relevant in this case. Good on her for doing it regardless of her colour.
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
I am reminded of the story that when filming Marathon Man, Dustin Hoffman ran miles and didn't sleep to look suitably ragged.
Laurence Olivier commented - "My dear boy, why don’t you just try acting?”
Ha - similar story of Sid James/Barbara Windsor: Sid to Barbara: you know, your boobs aren't actually that big* Barbara to Sid: no, it's called acting.
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
I am reminded of the story that when filming Marathon Man, Dustin Hoffman ran miles and didn't sleep to look suitably ragged.
Laurence Olivier commented - "My dear boy, why don’t you just try acting?”
I think the point is that opportunity should be given to those best able to represent certain characters e.g. a trans person to play a trans role.
I don't think anyone is denying the capacity of method actors to fill out of character roles.
As for the non-white lady reaching the South Pole I think this is worthy of note in the same way that the Sherpa ascent of K2 in winter was.
Why? Well certain types of exploration and sports have historically been the preserve of white males. Breaking the typecast is notable.
Just thinking about what you said. Seeing a female or ethnicity X or deaf or whatever person do Y is actually quite an important role model for children of the same ilk [edit] when for social or historical reasons they don't feel they are up to it when in fact they very much are. Female geologists and archaeologists are very clued up to that - the Trowel Blazers website for instance.
I once had a chat with a teacher in a scholl for the deaf who said that some of their teachers are deaf as well - one very important reason was that the children had had no adult role models. Indeed, in the old days they'd discovered that the children had, logically enough, convinced themselves that there were no deaf adults, so they wouldn't be deaf when they grew up.
But even getting South Asian folk out into the countryside for perfectly ordinary walks and rambles is itself a minor but real victory for health and happiness. There's quite a bit of campaigning in the inner cities for that.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's on the way out, especially in America. Unless i've missed anything, it's gone black>coloured>African-American>of colour>Black (the capital letter is important to show you're properly woke).
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Not sure of the point in mentioning colour at all unless it is relevant in some way and I can't see why it is relevant in this case. Good on her for doing it regardless of her colour.
Easier for rescue aircraft to pick her out against the snow?
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's on the way out, especially in America. Unless i've missed anything, it's gone black>coloured>African-American>of colour>Black (the capital letter is important to show you're properly woke).
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's on the way out, especially in America. Unless i've missed anything, it's gone black>coloured>African-American>of colour>Black (the capital letter is important to show you're properly woke).
Coloured is apparently apartheidspeak.
Also very negative in the US.
And yes, before anyone else says it, there is the NAACP.
I know this is a local and may have already been referred to but in these perilous times for the conservative party should labour supporters be voting Lib Dem
I know this is a local and may have already been referred to but in these perilous times for the conservative party should labour supporters be voting Lib Dem
Without knowing the history of the area, isn't that what Lib Dems have always been blooming good at? Identify an upcoming by-election, create a groundswell of support from a standing start by throwing the kitchen sink (or the equivalent mass in Focus leaflets) at it?
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
I find the rise of the idea that only certain people can play certain roles is ridiculous. All actors are playing roles, that's the whole job. You can say that people shouldn't 'black-up' to play a person of colour, but why then do actors try to look like the person they are playing?
These things are tricky, as evidenced by the bemused reaction of many to the idea of a female Santa Claus or indeed a female God. In principle, plays and movies will normally be about how people behave rather than specific people, so a white Othello or a black Romeo shouldn't be impossible. But it does get harder when a specific person is being portrayed - clearly Golda Meir couldn't be sensibly played by a man, of instance. So it comes down to whether the fact that she was an Israeli leader means that someone playing her needs to be Jewish to understand her feelnigs. I wouldn't think so - it might be helpful, but not essential, any more than someone playing a coal miner needs to have mined coal themselves - they just need to be good at thinking themselves into it.
The other thing is ... accents.
The acting may be fine, but e.g. an obviously bogus Irish accent (e.g., Julia Roberts in Michael Collins or Orson Welles in The Lady from Shanghai ) just makes those two films look ridiculous.
Tom Holllander's acting as the disintegrating Dylan Thomas in A Poet in New York was magnificent, but his ridiculous Welsh accent stole every scene.
There are many more dreadful examples, of course, including cringeworthy British accents from American actors, (& no doubt, vice versa).
Shocking videos from Almaty. Rarely have I had more humble and welcoming hosts than in Kazakhstan.
As for China and Taiwan, whether China is successful there rather depends on whether you think this is the Chinese Century.
I look at the foreign policy behaviour of China and Russia and see a lashing out from positions of severe and terminal domestic weakness. The trouble is that the West isn’t in good shape either.
China has always been prepared to play the long game with everything it does. The CCP is not slaughtering the Uighers, it’s slowly and patiently tilting the demographic trends its way and dismantling the Uigher cultural heritage in favour of Hanification. Equally the policy with Taiwan has always been similar. Steady as she goes. It’s blown of course recently but a growing economic blockade of the island would do the trick eventually.
Because does the West really have the strength and solidarity to do much about it? Well for starters it’s not going to sink a Chinese carrier group over it.
Someone mentioned the selective default on bonds held by the Chinese government. Ok. But what’s the worth of the assets (both physical and IP) held by corporate America in China? And corporate Europe for that matter? Are we prepared to switch off exports to China? Penury for Germany lies down that road. And switch off imports?? No.
Only the really simple minded should by now not have realised the mortal danger for Western society to be so economically interdependent on China, and specifically energy dependent on Russia. You’d like to think power brokers in the West are quietly figuring out how to undo it, piece by piece. And reminding Xi that all their fates are tied together. But we all know they’re not.
So where does that leave us? At a guess, in a period where it looks like the globe is tilting on its axis eastwards and obituaries will be written for Western democracy and Pax Americana. And at a hope, shortly thereafter in a new era where the innovation and optimism of the Western system puts us back on course as the contradictions of the autocrats implode.
Might not work out that way though. We might be seeing the decay of all the great empires simultaneously with civilisation about to enter a sustained period of regression in technology, prosperity and population. I’d be tempted to give that scenario greater odds than a global Pax Sinica frankly. All fascinating viewing from those UAPs no doubt.
Can anyone think of a more ridiculous time to have cut our ties with the EU or have in power the people who orchestrated it?
Well given the fact that the Germans are now sucking up to the Chinese and excusing all their crimes I think it is a bloody good time not to be associated with the EU.
That argument might carry more weight if
1. It was true 2. The British state’s pals were all squeaky clean
1. It is true 2. My comment was in reply to Rogers specifically about China. Your whataboutism is irrelevant. Just like most of the rest of your views.
I resort to whataboutism, you resort to ad hominemism. Lovely to see you taking the high moral ground. It really engenders your assertion fantastic weight and gravitas.
Ah typical Dickson response. When you have been caught out talking rubbish change the subject quick and hope no one notices.
I know this is a local and may have already been referred to but in these perilous times for the conservative party should labour supporters be voting Lib Dem
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
I find the rise of the idea that only certain people can play certain roles is ridiculous. All actors are playing roles, that's the whole job. You can say that people shouldn't 'black-up' to play a person of colour, but why then do actors try to look like the person they are playing?
These things are tricky, as evidenced by the bemused reaction of many to the idea of a female Santa Claus or indeed a female God. In principle, plays and movies will normally be about how people behave rather than specific people, so a white Othello or a black Romeo shouldn't be impossible. But it does get harder when a specific person is being portrayed - clearly Golda Meir couldn't be sensibly played by a man, of instance. So it comes down to whether the fact that she was an Israeli leader means that someone playing her needs to be Jewish to understand her feelnigs. I wouldn't think so - it might be helpful, but not essential, any more than someone playing a coal miner needs to have mined coal themselves - they just need to be good at thinking themselves into it.
In general I'm of the view that the whole point of being an actor is that you're playing a character who is not yourself, and so you don't necessarily need to match the physical appearance, or personal experience of a character you are playing. I think the rise of colour-blind casting has generally been a good thing.
But if we wouldn't find it acceptable for a white actor to black-up to play Mandela in a film then I don't think we should find it acceptable for a Caucasian to Jewishfy their appearance (with prosthetics, reportedly) to play Golda Meir. You'd be making quite a strong political point if you cast an Arab in the role given the likelihood of an Arab becoming Israeli PM, so I think it's clear that the ethnicity of the role matters.
A question: is the Conservative Party the same one that was insane enough to vote BJ to be leader and PM? If it is, expect them to choose someone of a similar ilk. Or have the influx of new MPs / the change in membership / Brexit being 'done' changed the balance of power within the party?
Hardly insane, BJ won the Conservatives their biggest election victory in 2019 since Thatcher in 1987.
Whether it is sane or not rests upon the outcome for the country, not the party. Trump won election but making him president was hardly a sensible thing to do.
For the party whether GOP or Tory the main thing is having a conservative in power
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
I find the rise of the idea that only certain people can play certain roles is ridiculous. All actors are playing roles, that's the whole job. You can say that people shouldn't 'black-up' to play a person of colour, but why then do actors try to look like the person they are playing?
These things are tricky, as evidenced by the bemused reaction of many to the idea of a female Santa Claus or indeed a female God. In principle, plays and movies will normally be about how people behave rather than specific people, so a white Othello or a black Romeo shouldn't be impossible. But it does get harder when a specific person is being portrayed - clearly Golda Meir couldn't be sensibly played by a man, of instance. So it comes down to whether the fact that she was an Israeli leader means that someone playing her needs to be Jewish to understand her feelnigs. I wouldn't think so - it might be helpful, but not essential, any more than someone playing a coal miner needs to have mined coal themselves - they just need to be good at thinking themselves into it.
The other thing is ... accents.
The acting may be fine, but e.g. an obviously bogus Irish accent (e.g., Julia Roberts in Michael Collins or Orson Welles in The Lady from Shanghai ) just makes those two films look ridiculous.
Tom Holllander's acting as the disintegrating Dylan Thomas in A Poet in New York was magnificent, but his ridiculous Welsh accent stole every scene.
There are many more dreadful examples, of course, including cringeworthy British accents from American actors, (& no doubt, vice versa).
I recall a hilarious review for "The Foreigner"* (Jackie Chan film) in which an Irish-American reviewer complained about the fake Irish accent. Of Pierce Brosnan.
*Bit of stupid film, but the scene where Pierce, playing Not-Gerry-Adams-No-Sir-Definitely-Not kneecaps the Not-Slab-Murphy-No-Sir-Definitely-Not character is screamingly funny. If you are as sick as me.
I know this is a local and may have already been referred to but in these perilous times for the conservative party should labour supporters be voting Lib Dem
Without knowing the history of the area, isn't that what Lib Dems have always been blooming good at? Identify an upcoming by-election, create a groundswell of support from a standing start by throwing the kitchen sink (or the equivalent mass in Focus leaflets) at it?
The bloody LibDems leafleted me -- ME -- on Christmas Eve.
I mean, in the middle of rural Wales, in a completely inhospitable constituency, to a completely hostile voter, some sad activist with nothing better to do on Christmas Eve was out ... and ploughing the lonely LibDem furrow.
So .... a special hug to the LibDem who did this I almost cried.
I know this is a local and may have already been referred to but in these perilous times for the conservative party should labour supporters be voting Lib Dem
Without knowing the history of the area, isn't that what Lib Dems have always been blooming good at? Identify an upcoming by-election, create a groundswell of support from a standing start by throwing the kitchen sink (or the equivalent mass in Focus leaflets) at it?
More to the point, even in the upcoming GE, they're still expected to compete where the Conservatives are likely to end up in third place anyway!
Labour and the Lib Dems are Different Parties, and likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future. The extent to any co-operation is going to be limited to, at most, not accidentally allowing the Tories to come through the middle of them and win seats with ~40% of the vote.
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Is there any more to it other than castign around for an acceptable term that means "non-white"?
They want to mention colour rather than not-mention white.
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
Weirdly, while 'of colour' seems to be acceptable*, 'coloured' is highly offensive.
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
It's strange how what's acceptable changes over time. I remember being told at junior school in the late 70s never to call anyone 'black' because it was rude, and that we should use the term 'coloured' instead. No idea if this was just a nice middle-class assumption that coloured=non-white and you might not know if someone was 'black' or 'mixed race'.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
Welcome to the dark side, Roger.
It shouldn't be sides. People should say what they believe and call out nonsense on either "side" of the debates. The Mirren story is nonsense that does need challenging, the other one irrelevant fluff imo.
Interesting - so anyone can play black or gay characters regardless of their colour or sexuality. I think so but very surprised at you.
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
I am reminded of the story that when filming Marathon Man, Dustin Hoffman ran miles and didn't sleep to look suitably ragged.
Laurence Olivier commented - "My dear boy, why don’t you just try acting?”
I think the point is that opportunity should be given to those best able to represent certain characters e.g. a trans person to play a trans role.
I don't think anyone is denying the capacity of method actors to fill out of character roles.
As for the non-white lady reaching the South Pole I think this is worthy of note in the same way that the Sherpa ascent of K2 in winter was.
Why? Well certain types of exploration and sports have historically been the preserve of white males. Breaking the typecast is notable.
Just thinking about what you said. Seeing a female or ethnicity X or deaf or whatever person do Y is actually quite an important role model for children of the same ilk [edit] when for social or historical reasons they don't feel they are up to it when in fact they very much are. Female geologists and archaeologists are very clued up to that - the Trowel Blazers website for instance.
I once had a chat with a teacher in a scholl for the deaf who said that some of their teachers are deaf as well - one very important reason was that the children had had no adult role models. Indeed, in the old days they'd discovered that the children had, logically enough, convinced themselves that there were no deaf adults, so they wouldn't be deaf when they grew up.
But even getting South Asian folk out into the countryside for perfectly ordinary walks and rambles is itself a minor but real victory for health and happiness. There's quite a bit of campaigning in the inner cities for that.
Did anyone watch World's Strongest Man? It's the one televisual fixture I have imposed on my family. I love it. If I could excel at any sport, it would be strongman. Anyway, it shouldn't matter that Tom Stoltman, the world's strongest man, is autistic. But it does, for exactly that reason. The son of a friend of mine is autistic, and for that reason I'm always on the lookout for examples of autistic people succeeding in life.
I'm less excited by non-white woman reaches south pole (apart from that anyone reaching the south pole is a tremendous achievment) because non-white person does x is much less rare. First black footballer was remarkable because it was unusual to have any positive black role models back then - but as Roger says, surely we have got beyond that now.
That said, on the final paragraph above, I know it's perceived that South Asians don't do country walks - for which reason, I'm always disproportionately pleased to see South Asians when I'm out walking. Not entirely sure why: I think because a) I love my countryside and it pleases me greatly to see everyone enjoying it, particularly groups outside who you would ordinarily see (South Asians, teenagers*, southerners) and b) enjoying the same landscape must be a great positive for integration. South Asians (particularly groups of young male South Asians) are, I would add, very much in evidence when walking in the countryside in Lancashire: Rivington Pike above Bolton and Pendle Hill above Burnley, for example.
*One of my happiest moments walking last year was on Wild Bank Hill above Stalybridge. I was at the top as a group of teenage boys arrived at the top. Dressed in tracksuits and trainers, happy and boisterous, and, it would seem, doing something they hadn't done before: they had walked for about an hour and made it to the top, and the quiet awe that here was something quite amazing which had been on their doorstep all these years was something wonderful to behold.
Completely OT. Yesterday I read an article by Maureen Lipman saying that casting Helen Mirren as Golda Meir was not the right thing to do as she isn't Jewish.
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
I am reminded of the story that when filming Marathon Man, Dustin Hoffman ran miles and didn't sleep to look suitably ragged.
Laurence Olivier commented - "My dear boy, why don’t you just try acting?”
I think the point is that opportunity should be given to those best able to represent certain characters e.g. a trans person to play a trans role.
I don't think anyone is denying the capacity of method actors to fill out of character roles.
As for the non-white lady reaching the South Pole I think this is worthy of note in the same way that the Sherpa ascent of K2 in winter was.
Why? Well certain types of exploration and sports have historically been the preserve of white males. Breaking the typecast is notable.
Yes, when you think of an explorer, you imagine someone called Sir Tufton Bufton, Harrow and Sandhurst, that kind of thing. So when someone who subverts that stereotype turns up, it is moderately newsworthy. A sikh heritage chap of my acquaintance was saying for a while that it was typical that her exploits had been ignored by the media, and he for one will be happy to see that she's now getting coverage, anyway. On the Maureen Lipman story, I think I'm kind of on the fence. I can see where she's coming from, and I'm against actors "blacking up" for roles etc, but I think the demand for a match in ethnicity can be taken too far, this seems kind of in the grey area, especially as I don't think you could argue that Jewish actors are locked out of roles in the film industry, as eg Asian actors have complained about, and I certainly wouldn't complain about them playing non-Jewish roles. Mirren isn't Jewish but she is part Russian and Meir was born in Ukraine so you could perhaps argue that the casting isn't totally out. I would imagine most people would be flattered to have Helen Mirren playing them, too...
Comments
Today there was an interview on the BBC with a woman introduced as 'the first 'Woman of colour' ever to walk to the South Pole'
I found both these things regressive and uncomfortable. Is it more difficult to walk to the South Pole if you're a 'Woman of Colour'? Why should someone's ethnicity bar an actress playing a part?
We really should be well past by this by now and it does no credit to the BBC or Maureen Lipman that they still propagate these divisions
Maybe 2019 was actually a good one to lose?
https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/pdf/PresseUndAktuelles/2021/KMK-Corona-Studie_Abschlussbericht.pdf
Scroll down to Anhang 6 (in English)
I've only read the Discussion which concludes:
"In Germany, school-related NPIs, in particular masking, have been successful in
mitigating the spread of the virus among both students and teachers."
Very very quiet last night, running club had the pool table uninterrupted for the hour or so we were there.
Though the start of January can't be too busy on a weeknight normally.
Not seen them this year
“Today, women represent only 1.2% percent of the global seafarer workforce as per the BIMCO/ICS 2021 Seafarer Workforce Report. This represents a positive trend in gender balance, with the report estimating 24,059 women serving as seafarers, which is a 45.8% increase compared with the 2015 report.
Within this historically male dominated industry, IMO has been making a concerted effort to help the industry move forward and support women to achieve a representation that is in keeping with twenty-first century expectations.”
https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/TechnicalCooperation/Pages/WomenInMaritime.aspx
Incidentally, there is much more to the maritime industry than the seafarers. Lots of good onshore careers.
Would think that would be sound reason to decide against further restrictions.
I was also wondering what had happened to CHB.
There is another pirate, @BartholomewRoberts about though
Dunno about CHB
The Crown has been closed for a week and a half in Killamarsh, new tenant landlord mucking it up apparently.
Others have not cottoned on that covid cannot be eliminated, and still cling to the idea that with just enough masks, lockdowns etc we can be free. Not going to happen.
People will also need to think about their own personal risk. When I was being treated for leukeamia it made sense to think about activities that might increase the risk of illness when more susceptible. Now not so much. This is NOT a charter that says 'I don't care about vulnerable people', but an inevitable fact of life.
There are some questions though - does your character have to be from a particular ethnic group? If it's a well known historical person then quite possibly. If the persons ethnic group is relevant to the role (e.g. a film covering civil rights in the US) then yes, you probably do. But in some other cases it doesn't really matter - take Dev Patel in The Personal History of David Copperfield. Fictional story, he was obviously envisaged as white, but who cares - it's not relevant to the story. Similarly, I'd be completely relaxed about a black (or Asian) Bond. I can understand, for historical and perhaps contemporary reasons of inequality that a white person playing a fictional character who happened to be black might not go down well. For gay, straight, disabled etc I'm really not bothered as long as the actors do a good job (if every gay character was played by a straight man being incredibly camp then I'd have an issue with that).
On the South Pole story, the thing that grated for me was 'Woman of Colour'. She was of south asian ethnicity (I didn't read the article, but I'm sure being more specific was possible too). 'of colour' strikes me as the new BAME, a useless catch-all that should not be used when there is a more specific group that can be used, if a group is needed at all.
Indeed with the trek to the South Pole I was astonished when they referred to her colour rather than her fantastic achievement
Indeed the conservative vote held up
Cavendish (Gedling) council by-election result:
LDEM: 35.5% (+15.8)
LAB: 30.8% (-24.8)
CON: 25.4% (+0.6)
IND: 5.7% (+5.7)
GRN: 2.6% (+2.6)
Votes cast: 985
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Labour.
I think there is Lord Hattersley anecdote of going up in a fighter aircraft, and he hated every second of it?
Would be a hell of a turnaround here, though. 18% or so, again and against a Tory majority of all votes, so not just a case of tactical voting needed. In the rural parts of the constituency, I'm pretty sure if you prick them they bleed blue.
And that's the last thing. A super-rich billionaire and his wife in a time of national austerity? No thanks. Not even the tory membership will swallow that one.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-59902498
After that I'd leave it up to the individual and companies to decide on work patterns.
I'd also get rid of all testing at the border, we had it with Omicron and it didn't help, by the time wed realised that something was different it was far, far too late. I'd also want to get international agreement on this with the US and EU where COVID rates are broadly similar. Why are we bothering to keep Americans and Europeans out of the UK (and them us) when there's basically no difference in our infection rates.
The only lasting change I'd make is a hard vaccine barrier on entry to the UK. A person must be fully vaccinated with at least one booster dose to enter the UK. No exceptions other than verified medical exemptions notified in advance of travelling. That's not to prevent spread, more to push people into the vaccine funnel.
Laurence Olivier commented - "My dear boy, why don’t you just try acting?”
Perhaps it should be called positive racism.
1. To protect the health system from being overwhelmed.
2. To buy time for more people to be vaccinated (and better treatments to be available).
I'm a bit lockdown sceptical/agnostic, but the cost/benefit calculations seem very difficult to make depending on the circumstances. If being boosted makes a big difference to hospitalisation, and millions are being boosted per week then there logically seems to be at least some benefit to slowing the spread.
I have a child who has to wear a mask in primary school (when inside and not eating or drinking). I'm not a big fan, but I just don't know how effective a measure it is, and I also don't know how much harm it is doing to my son - he *seems* to take it in his stride but some children seem to be more badly affected.
But I'm also happy that his schooling hasn't been interrupted by outbreaks or quarantine. Since they started testing in April last year there have been no outbreaks, no cases of known transmission in the school, despite a few individual positive cases turning up among children and staff, and all the classes have kept going. I don't know how much masks have contributed to this. They also keep the windows in the classroom open all the time, plus mechanical ventilation in the classrooms, the different classes don't mix, they have staggered breaks etc.
Omicron will no doubt change things, but I'm hoping that quarantine rules will be dropped/lessened for vaccinated children without symptoms.
I am unbelievably old and weak myself and I am entirely on Philip's side on this one. I wanna party.
I don't think anyone is denying the capacity of method actors to fill out of character roles.
As for the non-white lady reaching the South Pole I think this is worthy of note in the same way that the Sherpa ascent of K2 in winter was.
Why? Well certain types of exploration and sports have historically been the preserve of white males. Breaking the typecast is notable.
Hospital admissions are definitely heading down, in London
@GeoffNorcott
Why does Liz Truss look like Sheridan Smith in a biopic about Peggy Mitchell’s early life?
https://twitter.com/GeoffNorcott/status/1479384495136681984
I wondered why and as a result I spent 30 mins researching the matter on Google.
Check out the 3 links below and you will undoubtedly agree there appears to be a strong connection.
https://tinyurl.com/flashmanshrine
https://tinyurl.com/flashmanbookcovers
https://tinyurl.com/pfeffelbastard
I wonder if Harry Flashman had an amorous liaison with Hélène Arnous de Rivière who was Boris Johnson's great great grandmother?
Or is Lulu Lytle having a laugh at everybody else's enormous expense?
The Sherpa thing is interesting - my understanding is that, historically, there was little interest in climbing mountains, locally. That was something the crazy foreigners wanted to do - people die up there. But the younger generations see the most famous bits of their country as being entirely populated in foreigners and their exploits...
*Is it acceptable? Presumably it is if it's on the BBC. I thought it was falling out of favour. I remember a horribly right-on geography lecturer proudly using it in 1993, which was the first time I'd heard it. You'd think if it was around back then it must be offensive by now.
Sid to Barbara: you know, your boobs aren't actually that big*
Barbara to Sid: no, it's called acting.
*such things were allowed to be said in the 70s.
Talk about the Augean Stables.......
Good luck!
I once had a chat with a teacher in a scholl for the deaf who said that some of their teachers are deaf as well - one very important reason was that the children had had no adult role models. Indeed, in the old days they'd discovered that the children had, logically enough, convinced themselves that there were no deaf adults, so they wouldn't be deaf when they grew up.
But even getting South Asian folk out into the countryside for perfectly ordinary walks and rambles is itself a minor but real victory for health and happiness. There's quite a bit of campaigning in the inner cities for that.
And yes, before anyone else says it, there is the NAACP.
2) He is running, but thinks his chances are improved by being completely unrecognisable.
The acting may be fine, but e.g. an obviously bogus Irish accent (e.g., Julia Roberts in Michael Collins or Orson Welles in The Lady from Shanghai ) just makes those two films look ridiculous.
Tom Holllander's acting as the disintegrating Dylan Thomas in A Poet in New York was magnificent, but his ridiculous Welsh accent stole every scene.
There are many more dreadful examples, of course, including cringeworthy British accents from American actors, (& no doubt, vice versa).
But if we wouldn't find it acceptable for a white actor to black-up to play Mandela in a film then I don't think we should find it acceptable for a Caucasian to Jewishfy their appearance (with prosthetics, reportedly) to play Golda Meir. You'd be making quite a strong political point if you cast an Arab in the role given the likelihood of an Arab becoming Israeli PM, so I think it's clear that the ethnicity of the role matters.
‘Yeah, our paths just happened to cross. What are the chances!!!’
*Bit of stupid film, but the scene where Pierce, playing Not-Gerry-Adams-No-Sir-Definitely-Not kneecaps the Not-Slab-Murphy-No-Sir-Definitely-Not character is screamingly funny. If you are as sick as me.
I mean, in the middle of rural Wales, in a completely inhospitable constituency, to a completely hostile voter, some sad activist with nothing better to do on Christmas Eve was out ... and ploughing the lonely LibDem furrow.
So .... a special hug to the LibDem who did this
Labour and the Lib Dems are Different Parties, and likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future. The extent to any co-operation is going to be limited to, at most, not accidentally allowing the Tories to come through the middle of them and win seats with ~40% of the vote.
I subsequently married a South African, who was mixed race, therefore self-identified as Coloured (although she didn't really care what she was - she quite liked being 'Other' because that was the box she always ticked irrespective of how many categories there might be on a form). And woe betide anyone who thought 'Black' included my mother-in-law...
So this all aligned nicely with my 1970s schooling and it was only a few years ago that I discovered that 'coloured' was a pejorative term. I must admit I can't see why 'of colour' is acceptable if 'coloured' isn't as to my mind they mean exactly the same. Not for me to decide I suppose.
Anyway, it shouldn't matter that Tom Stoltman, the world's strongest man, is autistic. But it does, for exactly that reason. The son of a friend of mine is autistic, and for that reason I'm always on the lookout for examples of autistic people succeeding in life.
I'm less excited by non-white woman reaches south pole (apart from that anyone reaching the south pole is a tremendous achievment) because non-white person does x is much less rare. First black footballer was remarkable because it was unusual to have any positive black role models back then - but as Roger says, surely we have got beyond that now.
That said, on the final paragraph above, I know it's perceived that South Asians don't do country walks - for which reason, I'm always disproportionately pleased to see South Asians when I'm out walking. Not entirely sure why: I think because a) I love my countryside and it pleases me greatly to see everyone enjoying it, particularly groups outside who you would ordinarily see (South Asians, teenagers*, southerners) and b) enjoying the same landscape must be a great positive for integration.
South Asians (particularly groups of young male South Asians) are, I would add, very much in evidence when walking in the countryside in Lancashire: Rivington Pike above Bolton and Pendle Hill above Burnley, for example.
*One of my happiest moments walking last year was on Wild Bank Hill above Stalybridge. I was at the top as a group of teenage boys arrived at the top. Dressed in tracksuits and trainers, happy and boisterous, and, it would seem, doing something they hadn't done before: they had walked for about an hour and made it to the top, and the quiet awe that here was something quite amazing which had been on their doorstep all these years was something wonderful to behold.
Yesterday it looked like Covid hospital numbers peaked on the 5th at around 4,100.
Latest update only covers to the 4th, but on that day the number in acute trusts actually being treated for Covid was 2,026.
So on the inflated numbers the hospital peak is half last year. And of that roughly half is either not really covid or not acute.
On the Maureen Lipman story, I think I'm kind of on the fence. I can see where she's coming from, and I'm against actors "blacking up" for roles etc, but I think the demand for a match in ethnicity can be taken too far, this seems kind of in the grey area, especially as I don't think you could argue that Jewish actors are locked out of roles in the film industry, as eg Asian actors have complained about, and I certainly wouldn't complain about them playing non-Jewish roles. Mirren isn't Jewish but she is part Russian and Meir was born in Ukraine so you could perhaps argue that the casting isn't totally out. I would imagine most people would be flattered to have Helen Mirren playing them, too...