Reckon the strategy is to absolutely smash us to 200 lead then stick them in just before lunch.
Thoughts?
This is what the Met Office forecast the rainfall radar will look like at the scheduled start of play tomorrow (the marker is at the cricket ground). If they're unlucky they will end up taking an early lunch with no play in the morning. The forecast improves as the day goes on, but there are still showers about right up until the scheduled close of play.
Maybe they will be lucky. Maybe they will mostly miss the showers, and play will resume quickly after the few that do still arrive. I stand by what I said earlier - I think there's a good chance that there will be less than 80 overs of play left in this Test match.
I do find the concern about the colour of someones skin (or gender) in a work of fiction to be a strange concept. I think one of the best versions of David Copperfield I have ever seen was the 2019 version with Dev Patel. Just brilliant because all you could see was the quality of the acting.
It does worry me that we have this move towards claiming that minority characters can only be played by someone from that minority. It seems to undermine the whole point of acting.
Snow White not being very very white does seem a tad egregious. In the latest movie she is kinda Hispanic and dusky
The whole point of the fairy tale is that she has snowy white skin. Hence her name
I’ve no problem with casting anyone as anyone, within reason, but when it actually destroys the basic premise of the story: then yes. I have a problem.
It's ironic because the Hispanic star, Rachel Zegler, rose to fame playing Maria in the Spielberg remake of West Side Story, where she took on the role (a Puerto Rican) that had been played by Natalie Wood, a white actress, in the original film. So perhaps this is some kind of payback. I wonder whether this will cause the same furore as when Disney remade the Little Mermaid with a black actor, Halle Bailey, in the title role - when everyone knows that mermaids are white!
I think the Halle Bailey Mermaid is fine. But I do get the point Leon is making about a character called 'Snow White' because of a specific characteristic but who then... wasn't.
Not that it is really worth falling out over
First time I have ever heard anyone saw that "Snow White" was called that because of her lily-white skin color.
Stupidly, always assumed it was because she was pure at heart.
Mae West: I used to be Snow White, but I drifted.
Jason Zadrozny in Court in Nottingham tomorrow about Snow White.
I'm watching this horrible woke kids program where they've regendered the lead role and added a rasta just to be PC. It's a terrible sign of modernity in this leftie do-gooder world.
No, hang on, it's Maid Marion and Her Merry Men from 1989.
In all honesty, that was my initial suspicion when I first saw it. But the thing is, it was good. You can get away with a lot if your product is actually good. Nowadays, mostly they forget that bit (see Women Ghostbusters (can't remember the real name)). Everybody now: It's pancake day, it's pancake day, it's p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-pancake day...
The women ghostbusters was ace. Really well done. Do not understand the hostility towards it.
Because it was NOT funny? Which is problematic for an (alleged) comedy?
The original film is actually shit too, as anyone who has watched it as an adult will know. Of course watching it as a kid when it came out I loved it.
Disagree, seeing as how I was an adult when I first saw it, and still think it's funny.
BTT that "anyone who has watched it as an adult will know" is pretty juvenile IMHO.
Eh? I just meant if you have seen it as an adult rather than simply remembered it from childhood. I had fond memories of it then watched it recently and it just struck me as lame. The humour is laboured, the special effects have really dated, and the writing is lazy and predictable. Dan Ackroyd is far better in the Blues Brothers, and Bill Murray is far better in Groundhog Day.
If you are watching the BBC that is because they have done this idiotic thing where they have basically got rid of the differentiation between the world news channel and the national news channel as far as 24 hour news goes. So you get this strange situation where the news travels round the world in an 8 hour cycle but still keeps both the national and international news mixed together. So you get this strange situation where during, for example, the Singapore slot, you still get UK national news items being reported from the newsdesk in Singapore.
As far as I can see the World News channel in the morning is running British Daytime TV.
Is that correct? I haven't been more interested than to go "OMG", and switch to BBC WS radio or DW or France 24, all of which are more bearable at that time.
I like France 24 and Al Jazzera. They seems to have a much wider scope and range of news items that never really get mentioned on UK news channels. All the UK channels look very parochial by comparison.
I find France 24 to cover the Francophone world and especially former imperial areas (esp North Africa), whilst the BBC WS radio is very comprehensive. Which could of course be because we have far more former empire regions - in late Victorian times the British Empire was nearly 25% of world GDP.
I must admit I was surprised to see that the BBC reporter covering the New Zealand shootings was based in... Sydney. Does New Zealand no longer merit a correspondant?
They’ve been doing it for a while. Very weird and like having a BBC North Africa correspondent based in Switzerland. To add to that was the breathless reporting that this might be a threat to the Women’s World Cup - because in any major city a shooting never happens during or before a sport event but the worst was the fact that radio is a voice medium and that reporter seems to be chewing a Brillo pad whenever they file their report - I’m sure even the bbc can get it’s good to have radio reporters who can speak clearly and have a vague grasp of diction.
Reckon the strategy is to absolutely smash us to 200 lead then stick them in just before lunch.
Thoughts?
This is what the Met Office forecast the rainfall radar will look like at the scheduled start of play tomorrow (the marker is at the cricket ground). If they're unlucky they will end up taking an early lunch with no play in the morning. The forecast improves as the day goes on, but there are still showers about right up until the scheduled close of play.
Maybe they will be lucky. Maybe they will mostly miss the showers, and play will resume quickly after the few that do still arrive. I stand by what I said earlier - I think there's a good chance that there will be less than 80 overs of play left in this Test match.
I would declare overnight.
Sure, but they might as well see what the weather is doing at 1059 tomorrow. If raining, declare.
When do polls close for your three Trans-Elections?
Correction: BY-elections!
Thirty-nine minutes. The tension is palpable.
I imagine that word has spread across the constituencies of the world-historical importance of these by-elections for deciding the fate of the British government and, even now, hordes of determined voters are besieging polling stations demanding their right to vote, causing the harried election officers to phone urgently for extra supplies of ballot papers.
I'm watching this horrible woke kids program where they've regendered the lead role and added a rasta just to be PC. It's a terrible sign of modernity in this leftie do-gooder world.
No, hang on, it's Maid Marion and Her Merry Men from 1989.
In all honesty, that was my initial suspicion when I first saw it. But the thing is, it was good. You can get away with a lot if your product is actually good. Nowadays, mostly they forget that bit (see Women Ghostbusters (can't remember the real name)). Everybody now: It's pancake day, it's pancake day, it's p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-pancake day...
The women ghostbusters was ace. Really well done. Do not understand the hostility towards it.
Because it was NOT funny? Which is problematic for an (alleged) comedy?
The original film is actually shit too, as anyone who has watched it as an adult will know. Of course watching it as a kid when it came out I loved it.
Disagree, seeing as how I was an adult when I first saw it, and still think it's funny.
BTT that "anyone who has watched it as an adult will know" is pretty juvenile IMHO.
Eh? I just meant if you have seen it as an adult rather than simply remembered it from childhood. I had fond memories of it then watched it recently and it just struck me as lame. The humour is laboured, the special effects have really dated, and the writing is lazy and predictable. Dan Ackroyd is far better in the Blues Brothers, and Bill Murray is far better in Groundhog Day.
NOT challenging your opinion on original Ghost Busters movie.
AM challenging your assertion, that anyone watching it as an adult knows it's shit.
Cause it AIN'T that AND because I am an adult. Chronologically anyway!
I'm watching this horrible woke kids program where they've regendered the lead role and added a rasta just to be PC. It's a terrible sign of modernity in this leftie do-gooder world.
No, hang on, it's Maid Marion and Her Merry Men from 1989.
In all honesty, that was my initial suspicion when I first saw it. But the thing is, it was good. You can get away with a lot if your product is actually good. Nowadays, mostly they forget that bit (see Women Ghostbusters (can't remember the real name)). Everybody now: It's pancake day, it's pancake day, it's p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-pancake day...
The women ghostbusters was ace. Really well done. Do not understand the hostility towards it.
Because it was NOT funny? Which is problematic for an (alleged) comedy?
The original film is actually shit too, as anyone who has watched it as an adult will know. Of course watching it as a kid when it came out I loved it.
Disagree, seeing as how I was an adult when I first saw it, and still think it's funny.
BTT that "anyone who has watched it as an adult will know" is pretty juvenile IMHO.
Eh? I just meant if you have seen it as an adult rather than simply remembered it from childhood. I had fond memories of it then watched it recently and it just struck me as lame. The humour is laboured, the special effects have really dated, and the writing is lazy and predictable. Dan Ackroyd is far better in the Blues Brothers, and Bill Murray is far better in Groundhog Day.
NOT challenging your opinion on original Ghost Busters movie.
AM challenging your assertion, that anyone watching it as an adult knows it's shit.
Cause it AIN'T that AND because I am an adult. Chronologically anyway!
You are more than welcome to your opinion as I am to mine!
They're spreading the message that the City of London is happy to take (almost) ANY rich person's money, and they're spreading it worldwide.
The question is whether Nigel Farage has got Russian snow on his boots. This is a man who
1. Has frequently appeared on Russia Today.
2. Was a leading figure on one side of the Brexit referendum pushing for a result that among foreign leaders practically only President Putin signalled that he wanted.
3. Represents a political tendency that is somewhat fluid and has been backed by the Russian state elsewhere including in France.
4. Acts in a way that shall we say causes awkwardness in the City of London, at a time when the Russian government has signalled that it puts a lot of blame on the British government for backing the Ukrainian war effort including with specific reference to the latest Kerch bridge incident, to which they said they would respond.
The apology is because the Natwest is bang to rights because as I pointed out earlier there's reports the CEO of natwest sat next to the BBC bod at dinner, and the next day he said his Coutts sources had told him farage was broke
the next thing about which Coutts is shitting themselves, is when it transpires that Farage was sacked off for (partly) the rather tenuous russian links you allege, whereas Ivan Denisovich Godunov Borisovsky of Moscow and 100 of his cousins have painlessly maintained their Couttski accounts throughout the Ukrainian SMO, with the Social Purity Committee in Coutts not lifting a finger to exclude them.
Yes the City's image is a major asset which may be quite vulnerable should Britain-Russia relations deteriorate.
What kind of coverage might we see in the Independent and Evening Standard if the trouble snowballs from the Farage story which it may well do?
If you are watching the BBC that is because they have done this idiotic thing where they have basically got rid of the differentiation between the world news channel and the national news channel as far as 24 hour news goes. So you get this strange situation where the news travels round the world in an 8 hour cycle but still keeps both the national and international news mixed together. So you get this strange situation where during, for example, the Singapore slot, you still get UK national news items being reported from the newsdesk in Singapore.
As far as I can see the World News channel in the morning is running British Daytime TV.
Is that correct? I haven't been more interested than to go "OMG", and switch to BBC WS radio or DW or France 24, all of which are more bearable at that time.
I like France 24 and Al Jazzera. They seems to have a much wider scope and range of news items that never really get mentioned on UK news channels. All the UK channels look very parochial by comparison.
I find France 24 to cover the Francophone world and especially former imperial areas (esp North Africa), whilst the BBC WS radio is very comprehensive. Which could of course be because we have far more former empire regions - in late Victorian times the British Empire was nearly 25% of world GDP.
I must admit I was surprised to see that the BBC reporter covering the New Zealand shootings was based in... Sydney. Does New Zealand no longer merit a correspondant?
They’ve been doing it for a while. Very weird and like having a BBC North Africa correspondent based in Switzerland. To add to that was the breathless reporting that this might be a threat to the Women’s World Cup - because in any major city a shooting never happens during or before a sport event but the worst was the fact that radio is a voice medium and that reporter seems to be chewing a Brillo pad whenever they file their report - I’m sure even the bbc can get it’s good to have radio reporters who can speak clearly and have a vague grasp of diction.
To add insult to injury any news about New Zealand that the BBC deigns to carry on its website is filed away under 'Asia'.
Reckon the strategy is to absolutely smash us to 200 lead then stick them in just before lunch.
Thoughts?
This is what the Met Office forecast the rainfall radar will look like at the scheduled start of play tomorrow (the marker is at the cricket ground). If they're unlucky they will end up taking an early lunch with no play in the morning. The forecast improves as the day goes on, but there are still showers about right up until the scheduled close of play.
Maybe they will be lucky. Maybe they will mostly miss the showers, and play will resume quickly after the few that do still arrive. I stand by what I said earlier - I think there's a good chance that there will be less than 80 overs of play left in this Test match.
I would declare overnight.
England aren't going to bowl Australia out for 47. So we need more runs.
Why not get them when there is no pressure and you can just whack the ball to all corners? Chasing even 100 on a wicket which looks like it might start doing funny things might take much longer than just getting them up front.
100 more if possible, at 8+ an over, ditto.
The UKV forecast on which that is based suggests the showers will clear away by lunch, and has Sunday mostly dry.
I think there's plenty of time for England to win this.
I'm watching this horrible woke kids program where they've regendered the lead role and added a rasta just to be PC. It's a terrible sign of modernity in this leftie do-gooder world.
No, hang on, it's Maid Marion and Her Merry Men from 1989.
In all honesty, that was my initial suspicion when I first saw it. But the thing is, it was good. You can get away with a lot if your product is actually good. Nowadays, mostly they forget that bit (see Women Ghostbusters (can't remember the real name)). Everybody now: It's pancake day, it's pancake day, it's p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-pancake day...
The women ghostbusters was ace. Really well done. Do not understand the hostility towards it.
Because it was NOT funny? Which is problematic for an (alleged) comedy?
The original film is actually shit too, as anyone who has watched it as an adult will know. Of course watching it as a kid when it came out I loved it.
Disagree, seeing as how I was an adult when I first saw it, and still think it's funny.
BTT that "anyone who has watched it as an adult will know" is pretty juvenile IMHO.
Eh? I just meant if you have seen it as an adult rather than simply remembered it from childhood. I had fond memories of it then watched it recently and it just struck me as lame. The humour is laboured, the special effects have really dated, and the writing is lazy and predictable. Dan Ackroyd is far better in the Blues Brothers, and Bill Murray is far better in Groundhog Day.
NOT challenging your opinion on original Ghost Busters movie.
AM challenging your assertion, that anyone watching it as an adult knows it's shit.
Cause it AIN'T that AND because I am an adult. Chronologically anyway!
The remake was funny in places. The problem was, IMO, that it was not as *charming* as the original. I have watched the original Ghostbusters a fair few times over the years, and it still entertains, despite my knowing the jokes, because I feel like it has a certain charm. I've watched the remake once, and enjoyed it, but don't feel like watching it again.
TL;DR. I enjoyed the remake, but if I had a spare hour and a half, I'd watch the original. And that's what it is competing against.
I'm watching this horrible woke kids program where they've regendered the lead role and added a rasta just to be PC. It's a terrible sign of modernity in this leftie do-gooder world.
No, hang on, it's Maid Marion and Her Merry Men from 1989.
I wouldn't categorise it as Woke because it didn't take itself at all seriously. One of my favourite shows from Children's BBC.
Wasn't there an HMG sponsored report that suggesting accentuating the positives for descendants of Carribean slaves?
"Relive your ancestors' thrilling journey across the Atlantic when we illegally deport you!"
AND with (presumably) far less risk of getting thrown out mid-voyage!
Pretty remarkable, how the Party of LINCOLN is positively (in a sense) essentially the same pro-slavery arguments deployed by John C Calhoun, Jefferson Davis and fellow antebellum slave-drivers.
Ditto grotesque, disgusting and (IMHO) self-defeating.
I'm watching this horrible woke kids program where they've regendered the lead role and added a rasta just to be PC. It's a terrible sign of modernity in this leftie do-gooder world.
No, hang on, it's Maid Marion and Her Merry Men from 1989.
I wouldn't categorise it as Woke because it didn't take itself at all seriously. One of my favourite shows from Children's BBC.
Perhaps you are insufficiently Wack?
Somewhat like how Freedom Caucus determined Marjorie Taylor Greene is a Woke libtard Rhino?
Wasn't there an HMG sponsored report that suggesting accentuating the positives for descendants of Carribean slaves?
"Relive your ancestors' thrilling journey across the Atlantic when we illegally deport you!"
AND with (presumably) far less risk of getting thrown out mid-voyage!
Pretty remarkable, how the Party of LINCOLN is positively (in a sense) essentially the same pro-slavery arguments deployed by John C Calhoun, Jefferson Davis and fellow antebellum slave-drivers.
Ditto grotesque, disgusting and (IMHO) self-defeating.
BBC website and radio news (don't know about TV) is leading on Farage's bank account. Is this really of greater importance than Ukraine (Russia bombing grain ports??), Sudan, heat waves and about 100 other stories?
Edit: I see this has been mentioned before.
Probably more important in the sense of "If we don't give this prominence will we be bombarded with tweets/emails/newspaper messaging about 'Biased metro-elite liberal small-boat-lover BBC'"?
It's really cheap news because they don't have to do any research of their own, don't have to send a correspondent anywhere dangerous, don't really have to make any editorial judgements - just look at what the Mail and Telegraph are upset about.
It's a sign of a BBC that has completely lost its confidence and its sense of self.
The BBC have quite a lot of good people all over the world, and access to others like Reuters who also do (they are amazing). But domestically they usually keep it secret. This is strange. Aljazeera has more comprehensible news values.
I'm watching this horrible woke kids program where they've regendered the lead role and added a rasta just to be PC. It's a terrible sign of modernity in this leftie do-gooder world.
No, hang on, it's Maid Marion and Her Merry Men from 1989.
In all honesty, that was my initial suspicion when I first saw it. But the thing is, it was good. You can get away with a lot if your product is actually good. Nowadays, mostly they forget that bit (see Women Ghostbusters (can't remember the real name)). Everybody now: It's pancake day, it's pancake day, it's p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-pancake day...
The women ghostbusters was ace. Really well done. Do not understand the hostility towards it.
Because it was NOT funny? Which is problematic for an (alleged) comedy?
The original film is actually shit too, as anyone who has watched it as an adult will know. Of course watching it as a kid when it came out I loved it.
Disagree, seeing as how I was an adult when I first saw it, and still think it's funny.
BTT that "anyone who has watched it as an adult will know" is pretty juvenile IMHO.
Eh? I just meant if you have seen it as an adult rather than simply remembered it from childhood. I had fond memories of it then watched it recently and it just struck me as lame. The humour is laboured, the special effects have really dated, and the writing is lazy and predictable. Dan Ackroyd is far better in the Blues Brothers, and Bill Murray is far better in Groundhog Day.
NOT challenging your opinion on original Ghost Busters movie.
AM challenging your assertion, that anyone watching it as an adult knows it's shit.
Cause it AIN'T that AND because I am an adult. Chronologically anyway!
The remake was funny in places. The problem was, IMO, that it was not as *charming* as the original. I have watched the original Ghostbusters a fair few times over the years, and it still entertains, despite my knowing the jokes, because I feel like it has a certain charm. I've watched the remake once, and enjoyed it, but don't feel like watching it again.
TL;DR. I enjoyed the remake, but if I had a spare hour and a half, I'd watch the original. And that's what it is competing against.
Your point re: charm is super-cogent. Especially re: repeat appeal of this flick AND many other artistic productions?
For example, perhaps "Thelma and Louise" has it (first example coming to my fool head) but female GB doesn't?
Reckon the strategy is to absolutely smash us to 200 lead then stick them in just before lunch.
Thoughts?
This is what the Met Office forecast the rainfall radar will look like at the scheduled start of play tomorrow (the marker is at the cricket ground). If they're unlucky they will end up taking an early lunch with no play in the morning. The forecast improves as the day goes on, but there are still showers about right up until the scheduled close of play.
Maybe they will be lucky. Maybe they will mostly miss the showers, and play will resume quickly after the few that do still arrive. I stand by what I said earlier - I think there's a good chance that there will be less than 80 overs of play left in this Test match.
I would declare overnight.
England aren't going to bowl Australia out for 47. So we need more runs.
Why not get them when there is no pressure and you can just whack the ball to all corners? Chasing even 100 on a wicket which looks like it might start doing funny things might take much longer than just getting them up front.
100 more if possible, at 8+ an over, ditto.
The UKV forecast on which that is based suggests the showers will clear away by lunch, and has Sunday mostly dry.
I think there's plenty of time for England to win this.
Sadly the Oval may be a full washout...
That’s a really interesting analysis, and I agree. Get 200 ahead. The Oval is another country and only comes into play if we win this one. Shame the forecast is bad for the Oval but we can hope that it’s not as bad as forecast (often the SE escapes with better conditions than forecast, we can only hope…)
I'm watching this horrible woke kids program where they've regendered the lead role and added a rasta just to be PC. It's a terrible sign of modernity in this leftie do-gooder world.
No, hang on, it's Maid Marion and Her Merry Men from 1989.
I wouldn't categorise it as Woke because it didn't take itself at all seriously. One of my favourite shows from Children's BBC.
Perhaps you are insufficiently Wack?
Somewhat like how Freedom Caucus determined Marjorie Taylor Greene is a Woke libtard Rhino?
(Just kidding . . . in YOUR case!)
The most famous clip from the show is probably this one about Pancake Day, (aka Shrove Tuesday)
I'm watching this horrible woke kids program where they've regendered the lead role and added a rasta just to be PC. It's a terrible sign of modernity in this leftie do-gooder world.
No, hang on, it's Maid Marion and Her Merry Men from 1989.
In all honesty, that was my initial suspicion when I first saw it. But the thing is, it was good. You can get away with a lot if your product is actually good. Nowadays, mostly they forget that bit (see Women Ghostbusters (can't remember the real name)). Everybody now: It's pancake day, it's pancake day, it's p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-pancake day...
The women ghostbusters was ace. Really well done. Do not understand the hostility towards it.
Because it was NOT funny? Which is problematic for an (alleged) comedy?
The original film is actually shit too, as anyone who has watched it as an adult will know. Of course watching it as a kid when it came out I loved it.
Disagree, seeing as how I was an adult when I first saw it, and still think it's funny.
BTT that "anyone who has watched it as an adult will know" is pretty juvenile IMHO.
Eh? I just meant if you have seen it as an adult rather than simply remembered it from childhood. I had fond memories of it then watched it recently and it just struck me as lame. The humour is laboured, the special effects have really dated, and the writing is lazy and predictable. Dan Ackroyd is far better in the Blues Brothers, and Bill Murray is far better in Groundhog Day.
NOT challenging your opinion on original Ghost Busters movie.
AM challenging your assertion, that anyone watching it as an adult knows it's shit.
Cause it AIN'T that AND because I am an adult. Chronologically anyway!
The remake was funny in places. The problem was, IMO, that it was not as *charming* as the original. I have watched the original Ghostbusters a fair few times over the years, and it still entertains, despite my knowing the jokes, because I feel like it has a certain charm. I've watched the remake once, and enjoyed it, but don't feel like watching it again.
TL;DR. I enjoyed the remake, but if I had a spare hour and a half, I'd watch the original. And that's what it is competing against.
Your point re: charm is super-cogent. Especially re: repeat appeal of this flick AND many other artistic productions?
For example, perhaps "Thelma and Louise" has it (first example coming to my fool head) but female GB doesn't?
I love the original Ghostbusters, and I didn't see it as a young child - though I had cartoons of it and saw the kids TV series round my friends house. It's a good action comedy with an impeccable cast - they may or may not have done better films as individuals - are they supposed to stop making films after that?
Reckon the strategy is to absolutely smash us to 200 lead then stick them in just before lunch.
Thoughts?
This is what the Met Office forecast the rainfall radar will look like at the scheduled start of play tomorrow (the marker is at the cricket ground). If they're unlucky they will end up taking an early lunch with no play in the morning. The forecast improves as the day goes on, but there are still showers about right up until the scheduled close of play.
Maybe they will be lucky. Maybe they will mostly miss the showers, and play will resume quickly after the few that do still arrive. I stand by what I said earlier - I think there's a good chance that there will be less than 80 overs of play left in this Test match.
I would declare overnight.
England aren't going to bowl Australia out for 47. So we need more runs.
Why not get them when there is no pressure and you can just whack the ball to all corners? Chasing even 100 on a wicket which looks like it might start doing funny things might take much longer than just getting them up front.
100 more if possible, at 8+ an over, ditto.
The UKV forecast on which that is based suggests the showers will clear away by lunch, and has Sunday mostly dry.
I think there's plenty of time for England to win this.
Sadly the Oval may be a full washout...
That’s a really interesting analysis, and I agree. Get 200 ahead. The Oval is another country and only comes into play if we win this one. Shame the forecast is bad for the Oval but we can hope that it’s not as bad as forecast (often the SE escapes with better conditions than forecast, we can only hope…)
I’d say go even further. Get to 150 ahead then accelerate. At 200 ahead accelerate further, even if it means wickets falling. At 250 ahead start playing kamikaze cricket as if it’s the last over of the World Cup final with 15 to get. Unless you can be sure you won’t have a run chase at the end it’s always faster to get your own runs on the board in the first innings.
I don’t think it works to lure Australia to try to win this time, because they are comfortable with a draw. You want them hanging on for dear life with no hope of victory, like England in the 1990s.
Do we (and/or he) know where in UKR that Leon is now bound?
My own guess is Chernivtsi aka Чернівці́, Cernăuți, Czernowitz
Once capital of Bukovina, before 1918 the ass-end of the Austrian half of the Habsburg Empire; part of Romania before WW2, in 1949 the norther half was seized by Stalin and annexed into (then) Ukrainian SSR.
Looks like LAB in Uxbridge and Selby and LD in Somerton. But this is mainly due to disgruntled CON staying home albeit with a small amount of protest votes.
I don't think any of the results will declare quickly. Better to log on tomorrow morning to fit the discussion on the results around that on the cricket 👍
Reckon the strategy is to absolutely smash us to 200 lead then stick them in just before lunch.
Thoughts?
This is what the Met Office forecast the rainfall radar will look like at the scheduled start of play tomorrow (the marker is at the cricket ground). If they're unlucky they will end up taking an early lunch with no play in the morning. The forecast improves as the day goes on, but there are still showers about right up until the scheduled close of play.
Maybe they will be lucky. Maybe they will mostly miss the showers, and play will resume quickly after the few that do still arrive. I stand by what I said earlier - I think there's a good chance that there will be less than 80 overs of play left in this Test match.
I would declare overnight.
England aren't going to bowl Australia out for 47. So we need more runs.
Why not get them when there is no pressure and you can just whack the ball to all corners? Chasing even 100 on a wicket which looks like it might start doing funny things might take much longer than just getting them up front.
100 more if possible, at 8+ an over, ditto.
The UKV forecast on which that is based suggests the showers will clear away by lunch, and has Sunday mostly dry.
I think there's plenty of time for England to win this.
Sadly the Oval may be a full washout...
England don't know how many runs they need to score - but they know they need to take 10 Australian wickets. So they should give themselves as much time as possible to get 10 Australian wickets. Not much point scoring runs that they don't need, and taking time out of the game.
I'm watching this horrible woke kids program where they've regendered the lead role and added a rasta just to be PC. It's a terrible sign of modernity in this leftie do-gooder world.
No, hang on, it's Maid Marion and Her Merry Men from 1989.
In all honesty, that was my initial suspicion when I first saw it. But the thing is, it was good. You can get away with a lot if your product is actually good. Nowadays, mostly they forget that bit (see Women Ghostbusters (can't remember the real name)). Everybody now: It's pancake day, it's pancake day, it's p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-pancake day...
The women ghostbusters was ace. Really well done. Do not understand the hostility towards it.
I just didn't find it funny. I was surprised because I like the actors in it. But it really lacked that spark that made the first two such fun. I do wonder if it was just down to the lack of two specific actors - Dan Ackroyd and Bill Murray. I suspect that an all male remake would have fallen equally flat without them.
And I thought the writing was lazy. Its a bit like the Jodie Whittaker Doctor Who. She is a fab actress and it could have been fab. The fact it wasn't has nothing to do with her at all and everything to do with really (REALLY!) poor writing that walked all over canon.
I agree that the writing for the Jodie Whittaker Doctor was almost completely awful, but I found the ghostbusters very funny. Maybe it's easy to make me laugh.
I found it quite funny, too. Though deeply flawed.
I gave up on poor Jodie’s Doctor after a couple of episodes. Not her fault.
Reckon the strategy is to absolutely smash us to 200 lead then stick them in just before lunch.
Thoughts?
This is what the Met Office forecast the rainfall radar will look like at the scheduled start of play tomorrow (the marker is at the cricket ground). If they're unlucky they will end up taking an early lunch with no play in the morning. The forecast improves as the day goes on, but there are still showers about right up until the scheduled close of play.
Maybe they will be lucky. Maybe they will mostly miss the showers, and play will resume quickly after the few that do still arrive. I stand by what I said earlier - I think there's a good chance that there will be less than 80 overs of play left in this Test match.
I would declare overnight.
England aren't going to bowl Australia out for 47. So we need more runs.
Why not get them when there is no pressure and you can just whack the ball to all corners? Chasing even 100 on a wicket which looks like it might start doing funny things might take much longer than just getting them up front.
100 more if possible, at 8+ an over, ditto.
The UKV forecast on which that is based suggests the showers will clear away by lunch, and has Sunday mostly dry.
I think there's plenty of time for England to win this.
Sadly the Oval may be a full washout...
That’s a really interesting analysis, and I agree. Get 200 ahead. The Oval is another country and only comes into play if we win this one. Shame the forecast is bad for the Oval but we can hope that it’s not as bad as forecast (often the SE escapes with better conditions than forecast, we can only hope…)
I’d say go even further. Get to 150 ahead then accelerate. At 200 ahead accelerate further, even if it means wickets falling. At 250 ahead start playing kamikaze cricket as if it’s the last over of the World Cup final with 15 to get. Unless you can be sure you won’t have a run chase at the end it’s always faster to get your own runs on the board in the first innings.
I don’t think it works to lure Australia to try to win this time, because they are comfortable with a draw. You want them hanging on for dear life with no hope of victory, like England in the 1990s.
Reckon the strategy is to absolutely smash us to 200 lead then stick them in just before lunch.
Thoughts?
This is what the Met Office forecast the rainfall radar will look like at the scheduled start of play tomorrow (the marker is at the cricket ground). If they're unlucky they will end up taking an early lunch with no play in the morning. The forecast improves as the day goes on, but there are still showers about right up until the scheduled close of play.
Maybe they will be lucky. Maybe they will mostly miss the showers, and play will resume quickly after the few that do still arrive. I stand by what I said earlier - I think there's a good chance that there will be less than 80 overs of play left in this Test match.
I would declare overnight.
England aren't going to bowl Australia out for 47. So we need more runs.
Why not get them when there is no pressure and you can just whack the ball to all corners? Chasing even 100 on a wicket which looks like it might start doing funny things might take much longer than just getting them up front.
100 more if possible, at 8+ an over, ditto.
The UKV forecast on which that is based suggests the showers will clear away by lunch, and has Sunday mostly dry.
I think there's plenty of time for England to win this.
Sadly the Oval may be a full washout...
That’s a really interesting analysis, and I agree. Get 200 ahead. The Oval is another country and only comes into play if we win this one. Shame the forecast is bad for the Oval but we can hope that it’s not as bad as forecast (often the SE escapes with better conditions than forecast, we can only hope…)
I’d say go even further. Get to 150 ahead then accelerate. At 200 ahead accelerate further, even if it means wickets falling. At 250 ahead start playing kamikaze cricket as if it’s the last over of the World Cup final with 15 to get. Unless you can be sure you won’t have a run chase at the end it’s always faster to get your own runs on the board in the first innings.
I don’t think it works to lure Australia to try to win this time, because they are comfortable with a draw. You want them hanging on for dear life with no hope of victory, like England in the 1990s.
Wasn't there an HMG sponsored report that suggesting accentuating the positives for descendants of Carribean slaves?
"Relive your ancestors' thrilling journey across the Atlantic when we illegally deport you!"
I have genuinely outraged gammons on the internet by saying that a slave awaiting the middle passage at a barracoon, was in no better a position than a jew awaiting a train to auschwitz. The thinking is: one gets you a transatlantic cruise on a square rigged three master on the classic downwind trade wind route, to a Caribbean island with a job for life, accommodation included, and the other one gets you to auschwitz.
Looks like LAB in Uxbridge and Selby and LD in Somerton. But this is mainly due to disgruntled CON staying home albeit with a small amount of protest votes.
I don't think any of the results will declare quickly. Better to log on tomorrow morning to fit the discussion on the results around that on the cricket 👍
I do find the concern about the colour of someones skin (or gender) in a work of fiction to be a strange concept. I think one of the best versions of David Copperfield I have ever seen was the 2019 version with Dev Patel. Just brilliant because all you could see was the quality of the acting.
It does worry me that we have this move towards claiming that minority characters can only be played by someone from that minority. It seems to undermine the whole point of acting.
Snow White not being very very white does seem a tad egregious. In the latest movie she is kinda Hispanic and dusky
The whole point of the fairy tale is that she has snowy white skin. Hence her name
I’ve no problem with casting anyone as anyone, within reason, but when it actually destroys the basic premise of the story: then yes. I have a problem.
It's ironic because the Hispanic star, Rachel Zegler, rose to fame playing Maria in the Spielberg remake of West Side Story, where she took on the role (a Puerto Rican) that had been played by Natalie Wood, a white actress, in the original film. So perhaps this is some kind of payback. I wonder whether this will cause the same furore as when Disney remade the Little Mermaid with a black actor, Halle Bailey, in the title role - when everyone knows that mermaids are white!
I think the Halle Bailey Mermaid is fine. But I do get the point Leon is making about a character called 'Snow White' because of a specific characteristic but who then... wasn't.
Not that it is really worth falling out over
First time I have ever heard anyone saw that "Snow White" was called that because of her lily-white skin color.
Stupidly, always assumed it was because she was pure at heart.
It’s literally the first paragraph of the Grimm Brothers’ story. IT WAS the middle of winter, and the snow-flakes were falling like feathers from the sky, and a Queen sat at her window working, and her embroidery-frame was of ebony. And as she worked, gazing at times out on the snow, she pricked her finger, and there fell from it three drops of blood on the snow. And when she saw how bright and red it looked, she said to herself, “Oh that I had a child as white as snow, as red as blood, and as black as the wood of the embroidery frame!” Not very long after she had a daughter, with a skin as white as snow, lips as red as blood, and hair as black as ebony, and she was named Snow-white. And when she was born the Queen died...
Has it been confirmed Johnson put Farage forward for a knighthood which was turned down by the committee ?
Well, the Express believes it:-
Nigel Farage has been recommended for a knighthood "at least five times" but has been consistantly blocked by the "establishment" dominated committee of civil servants who have to approve honours, Express.co.uk has learnt.
The Just Stop Oil Labour donor guy is launching a domestic airline. Yes folks, the most polluting form of travel of them all.
Hmm…a year of running conventional fuel before potentially commercialising a new more environmentally friendly technology? Sounds like exactly the sort of entrepreneurial risk we would want people to take in order to take action on climate change without the hair shirts.
Especially as, if I understand correctly, the main reason conventional fuel is being used initially is for the airline to get CAA approval.
I'm watching this horrible woke kids program where they've regendered the lead role and added a rasta just to be PC. It's a terrible sign of modernity in this leftie do-gooder world.
No, hang on, it's Maid Marion and Her Merry Men from 1989.
In all honesty, that was my initial suspicion when I first saw it. But the thing is, it was good. You can get away with a lot if your product is actually good. Nowadays, mostly they forget that bit (see Women Ghostbusters (can't remember the real name)). Everybody now: It's pancake day, it's pancake day, it's p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-pancake day...
The women ghostbusters was ace. Really well done. Do not understand the hostility towards it.
Because it was NOT funny? Which is problematic for an (alleged) comedy?
The original film is actually shit too, as anyone who has watched it as an adult will know. Of course watching it as a kid when it came out I loved it.
Disagree, seeing as how I was an adult when I first saw it, and still think it's funny.
BTT that "anyone who has watched it as an adult will know" is pretty juvenile IMHO.
Eh? I just meant if you have seen it as an adult rather than simply remembered it from childhood. I had fond memories of it then watched it recently and it just struck me as lame. The humour is laboured, the special effects have really dated, and the writing is lazy and predictable. Dan Ackroyd is far better in the Blues Brothers, and Bill Murray is far better in Groundhog Day.
NOT challenging your opinion on original Ghost Busters movie.
AM challenging your assertion, that anyone watching it as an adult knows it's shit.
Cause it AIN'T that AND because I am an adult. Chronologically anyway!
The remake was funny in places. The problem was, IMO, that it was not as *charming* as the original. I have watched the original Ghostbusters a fair few times over the years, and it still entertains, despite my knowing the jokes, because I feel like it has a certain charm. I've watched the remake once, and enjoyed it, but don't feel like watching it again.
TL;DR. I enjoyed the remake, but if I had a spare hour and a half, I'd watch the original. And that's what it is competing against.
Your point re: charm is super-cogent. Especially re: repeat appeal of this flick AND many other artistic productions?
For example, perhaps "Thelma and Louise" has it (first example coming to my fool head) but female GB doesn't?
I love the original Ghostbusters, and I didn't see it as a young child - though I had cartoons of it and saw the kids TV series round my friends house. It's a good action comedy with an impeccable cast - they may or may not have done better films as individuals - are they supposed to stop making films after that?
Part of what makes original GB successful/charming is the rather wide diversity of the characters and personalities portrayed/portraying.
From Bill Murray's impish rogue to Harold Ramis's scholarly nerd to Dan Akroyd's man-child to Annie Potts girl-Friday to Sigourney Weaver's baffled beauty to Rick Moranis's hopeful beast to William Atherton's obnoxious bureaucrat to Ernie Hudson's every-man.
Reckon the strategy is to absolutely smash us to 200 lead then stick them in just before lunch.
Thoughts?
This is what the Met Office forecast the rainfall radar will look like at the scheduled start of play tomorrow (the marker is at the cricket ground). If they're unlucky they will end up taking an early lunch with no play in the morning. The forecast improves as the day goes on, but there are still showers about right up until the scheduled close of play.
Maybe they will be lucky. Maybe they will mostly miss the showers, and play will resume quickly after the few that do still arrive. I stand by what I said earlier - I think there's a good chance that there will be less than 80 overs of play left in this Test match.
I would declare overnight.
England aren't going to bowl Australia out for 47. So we need more runs.
Why not get them when there is no pressure and you can just whack the ball to all corners? Chasing even 100 on a wicket which looks like it might start doing funny things might take much longer than just getting them up front.
100 more if possible, at 8+ an over, ditto.
The UKV forecast on which that is based suggests the showers will clear away by lunch, and has Sunday mostly dry.
I think there's plenty of time for England to win this.
Sadly the Oval may be a full washout...
We've had no rain the first two days and 165 overs of play (including 2 for the change of innings). The Australian 1st innings lasted for 90.2 overs. I'm assuming at a minimum that there is no play on Saturday and time lost to rain on both Friday and Sunday. So the maximum number of overs left in the match is perhaps 140, and could easily be considerably less.
The scenario I'm trying to avoid is Australia only being a couple of wickets down at the start of Sunday, more time lost so that they know they won't have to face a second new ball, and it doesn't seem too hard for them to play out a draw. It doesn't matter in that scenario if they're 200 or 300 runs behind, because they don't have to survive all that long.
Looks like LAB in Uxbridge and Selby and LD in Somerton. But this is mainly due to disgruntled CON staying home albeit with a small amount of protest votes.
I don't think any of the results will declare quickly. Better to log on tomorrow morning to fit the discussion on the results around that on the cricket 👍
And a possible cabinet reshuffle?
I don't see that helping things, unless Rishi plans to reshuffle himself out of the cabinet. The suggestions of what might happen in the reshuffle are simply dire.
I don't normally have anything good to say about Ryanair, but this is a commendable move from them, and builds confidence in Ukraine's post-war future.
Michael O'Leary is out in Dublin in a fancy new pub. They claim to have have the cheapest Guinness in Dublin. "How much is it, then," he asks. "3 euros a pint" replies the barman. "3 Euros", says Michael, "I'll have one." "Very good sir," says the barman. "Will you be wanting a glass with that?"
I'm watching this horrible woke kids program where they've regendered the lead role and added a rasta just to be PC. It's a terrible sign of modernity in this leftie do-gooder world.
No, hang on, it's Maid Marion and Her Merry Men from 1989.
In all honesty, that was my initial suspicion when I first saw it. But the thing is, it was good. You can get away with a lot if your product is actually good. Nowadays, mostly they forget that bit (see Women Ghostbusters (can't remember the real name)). Everybody now: It's pancake day, it's pancake day, it's p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-pancake day...
The women ghostbusters was ace. Really well done. Do not understand the hostility towards it.
Because it was NOT funny? Which is problematic for an (alleged) comedy?
The original film is actually shit too, as anyone who has watched it as an adult will know. Of course watching it as a kid when it came out I loved it.
Disagree, seeing as how I was an adult when I first saw it, and still think it's funny.
BTT that "anyone who has watched it as an adult will know" is pretty juvenile IMHO.
Eh? I just meant if you have seen it as an adult rather than simply remembered it from childhood. I had fond memories of it then watched it recently and it just struck me as lame. The humour is laboured, the special effects have really dated, and the writing is lazy and predictable. Dan Ackroyd is far better in the Blues Brothers, and Bill Murray is far better in Groundhog Day.
NOT challenging your opinion on original Ghost Busters movie.
AM challenging your assertion, that anyone watching it as an adult knows it's shit.
Cause it AIN'T that AND because I am an adult. Chronologically anyway!
The remake was funny in places. The problem was, IMO, that it was not as *charming* as the original. I have watched the original Ghostbusters a fair few times over the years, and it still entertains, despite my knowing the jokes, because I feel like it has a certain charm. I've watched the remake once, and enjoyed it, but don't feel like watching it again.
TL;DR. I enjoyed the remake, but if I had a spare hour and a half, I'd watch the original. And that's what it is competing against.
Your point re: charm is super-cogent. Especially re: repeat appeal of this flick AND many other artistic productions?
For example, perhaps "Thelma and Louise" has it (first example coming to my fool head) but female GB doesn't?
I love the original Ghostbusters, and I didn't see it as a young child - though I had cartoons of it and saw the kids TV series round my friends house. It's a good action comedy with an impeccable cast - they may or may not have done better films as individuals - are they supposed to stop making films after that?
Part of what makes original GB successful/charming is the rather wide diversity of the characters and personalities portrayed/portraying.
From Bill Murray's impish rogue to Harold Ramis's scholarly nerd to Dan Akroyd's man-child to Annie Potts girl-Friday to Sigourney Weaver's baffled beauty to Rick Moranis's hopeful beast to William Atherton's obnoxious bureaucrat to Ernie Hudson's every-man.
The late lamented Ramis was, of course, one of the scriptwriters of Groundhog Day.
I do find the concern about the colour of someones skin (or gender) in a work of fiction to be a strange concept. I think one of the best versions of David Copperfield I have ever seen was the 2019 version with Dev Patel. Just brilliant because all you could see was the quality of the acting.
It does worry me that we have this move towards claiming that minority characters can only be played by someone from that minority. It seems to undermine the whole point of acting.
Snow White not being very very white does seem a tad egregious. In the latest movie she is kinda Hispanic and dusky
The whole point of the fairy tale is that she has snowy white skin. Hence her name
I’ve no problem with casting anyone as anyone, within reason, but when it actually destroys the basic premise of the story: then yes. I have a problem.
It's ironic because the Hispanic star, Rachel Zegler, rose to fame playing Maria in the Spielberg remake of West Side Story, where she took on the role (a Puerto Rican) that had been played by Natalie Wood, a white actress, in the original film. So perhaps this is some kind of payback. I wonder whether this will cause the same furore as when Disney remade the Little Mermaid with a black actor, Halle Bailey, in the title role - when everyone knows that mermaids are white!
I think the Halle Bailey Mermaid is fine. But I do get the point Leon is making about a character called 'Snow White' because of a specific characteristic but who then... wasn't.
Not that it is really worth falling out over
But any fule kno that real mermaids are grey, as discussed earlier.
Has it been confirmed Johnson put Farage forward for a knighthood which was turned down by the committee ?
Well, the Express believes it:-
Nigel Farage has been recommended for a knighthood "at least five times" but has been consistantly blocked by the "establishment" dominated committee of civil servants who have to approve honours, Express.co.uk has learnt.
Has it been confirmed Johnson put Farage forward for a knighthood which was turned down by the committee ?
WTF? Seriously?
Seems so - madness if true
Which bit?
That there was pressure to give Farage some sort of bauble? (I mean, I think he is ghastly, but he was a significant figure in the genesis of Johnson's defining policy. No worse than some of Johnson's life peers.)
That Johnson wanted to give him said bauble? (Again, look at Johnson's honours lists.)
That the blob turned him down? (I don't know, none of us know, but perhaps the spooks know something that makes him unsuitable for an honour. It wouldn't be a shock, exactly.)
I do find the concern about the colour of someones skin (or gender) in a work of fiction to be a strange concept. I think one of the best versions of David Copperfield I have ever seen was the 2019 version with Dev Patel. Just brilliant because all you could see was the quality of the acting.
It does worry me that we have this move towards claiming that minority characters can only be played by someone from that minority. It seems to undermine the whole point of acting.
Snow White not being very very white does seem a tad egregious. In the latest movie she is kinda Hispanic and dusky
The whole point of the fairy tale is that she has snowy white skin. Hence her name
I’ve no problem with casting anyone as anyone, within reason, but when it actually destroys the basic premise of the story: then yes. I have a problem.
It's ironic because the Hispanic star, Rachel Zegler, rose to fame playing Maria in the Spielberg remake of West Side Story, where she took on the role (a Puerto Rican) that had been played by Natalie Wood, a white actress, in the original film. So perhaps this is some kind of payback. I wonder whether this will cause the same furore as when Disney remade the Little Mermaid with a black actor, Halle Bailey, in the title role - when everyone knows that mermaids are white!
I think the Halle Bailey Mermaid is fine. But I do get the point Leon is making about a character called 'Snow White' because of a specific characteristic but who then... wasn't.
Not that it is really worth falling out over
Is @Leon bothered by Black Rod, not being, er, black?
Has it been confirmed Johnson put Farage forward for a knighthood which was turned down by the committee ?
Well, the Express believes it:-
Nigel Farage has been recommended for a knighthood "at least five times" but has been consistantly blocked by the "establishment" dominated committee of civil servants who have to approve honours, Express.co.uk has learnt.
Wasn't there an HMG sponsored report that suggesting accentuating the positives for descendants of Carribean slaves?
"Relive your ancestors' thrilling journey across the Atlantic when we illegally deport you!"
I have genuinely outraged gammons on the internet by saying that a slave awaiting the middle passage at a barracoon, was in no better a position than a jew awaiting a train to auschwitz. The thinking is: one gets you a transatlantic cruise on a square rigged three master on the classic downwind trade wind route, to a Caribbean island with a job for life, accommodation included, and the other one gets you to auschwitz.
More correctly, Auschwitz was a complex of camps of which some provided the selected inmates with jobs for life, or such was the intention. Primo Levi was such an inmate. Edit: I'm sure you know that - but many people won't.
Has it been confirmed Johnson put Farage forward for a knighthood which was turned down by the committee ?
Well, the Express believes it:-
Nigel Farage has been recommended for a knighthood "at least five times" but has been consistantly blocked by the "establishment" dominated committee of civil servants who have to approve honours, Express.co.uk has learnt.
I do find the concern about the colour of someones skin (or gender) in a work of fiction to be a strange concept. I think one of the best versions of David Copperfield I have ever seen was the 2019 version with Dev Patel. Just brilliant because all you could see was the quality of the acting.
It does worry me that we have this move towards claiming that minority characters can only be played by someone from that minority. It seems to undermine the whole point of acting.
Snow White not being very very white does seem a tad egregious. In the latest movie she is kinda Hispanic and dusky
The whole point of the fairy tale is that she has snowy white skin. Hence her name
I’ve no problem with casting anyone as anyone, within reason, but when it actually destroys the basic premise of the story: then yes. I have a problem.
It's ironic because the Hispanic star, Rachel Zegler, rose to fame playing Maria in the Spielberg remake of West Side Story, where she took on the role (a Puerto Rican) that had been played by Natalie Wood, a white actress, in the original film. So perhaps this is some kind of payback. I wonder whether this will cause the same furore as when Disney remade the Little Mermaid with a black actor, Halle Bailey, in the title role - when everyone knows that mermaids are white!
I think the Halle Bailey Mermaid is fine. But I do get the point Leon is making about a character called 'Snow White' because of a specific characteristic but who then... wasn't.
Not that it is really worth falling out over
It's just her name though, it's not like she's Othello and her racial background is key to the whole story. The point is that she is young and beautiful and this angers her stepmother who is growing old - and the story dates from a time where having very fair skin was synonymous with beauty - which isn't really the case for Western beauty standards these days. Rachel Zegler is certainly very beautiful in a youthful and innocent kind of way, so I think it is decent casting.
But the reason she is called Snow White is coz her skin is white as snow. It’s not a frigging metaphor, it’s the basis of the story
From the original Grimms’ Fairy Tale
“a queen sat at her window working, and her embroidery-frame was of ebony. And as she worked, gazing at times out on the snow, she pricked her finger, and there fell from it three drops of blood on the snow. And when she saw how bright and red it looked, she said to herself, "Oh that I had a child as white as snow, as red as blood, and as black as the wood of the embroidery frame!" Not very long after she had a daughter, with a skin as white as snow, lips as red as blood, and hair as black as ebony, and she was named Snow-white.”
I mean, that’s that. The Queen didn’t wish for a “beautiful Latinx daughter with a pure heart which could be unfairly termed ‘white’ in a racialised society’
She asked for a child as white as snow
Not really a lot of wriggle room there. The movie will likely bomb like so many recent Woke Disney efforts
Has it been confirmed Johnson put Farage forward for a knighthood which was turned down by the committee ?
WTF? Seriously?
Seems so - madness if true
Which bit?
That there was pressure to give Farage some sort of bauble? (I mean, I think he is ghastly, but he was a significant figure in the genesis of Johnson's defining policy. No worse than some of Johnson's life peers.)
That Johnson wanted to give him said bauble? (Again, look at Johnson's honours lists.)
That the blob turned him down? (I don't know, none of us know, but perhaps the spooks know something that makes him unsuitable for an honour. It wouldn't be a shock, exactly.)
I don't think Charles would relish knighting him given his 'stupid' remarks about the suitcase of cash.
Has it been confirmed Johnson put Farage forward for a knighthood which was turned down by the committee ?
Well, the Express believes it:-
Nigel Farage has been recommended for a knighthood "at least five times" but has been consistantly blocked by the "establishment" dominated committee of civil servants who have to approve honours, Express.co.uk has learnt.
Congratulations on them for making someone moaning about not being given a gong because they really want one into a tale of an upstart against the Establishment.
Has it been confirmed Johnson put Farage forward for a knighthood which was turned down by the committee ?
WTF? Seriously?
Seems so - madness if true
Which bit?
That there was pressure to give Farage some sort of bauble? (I mean, I think he is ghastly, but he was a significant figure in the genesis of Johnson's defining policy. No worse than some of Johnson's life peers.)
That Johnson wanted to give him said bauble? (Again, look at Johnson's honours lists.)
That the blob turned him down? (I don't know, none of us know, but perhaps the spooks know something that makes him unsuitable for an honour. It wouldn't be a shock, exactly.)
Sir Gavin Williamson Sir Michael Fabricant Sir Edward Leigh
I do find the concern about the colour of someones skin (or gender) in a work of fiction to be a strange concept. I think one of the best versions of David Copperfield I have ever seen was the 2019 version with Dev Patel. Just brilliant because all you could see was the quality of the acting.
It does worry me that we have this move towards claiming that minority characters can only be played by someone from that minority. It seems to undermine the whole point of acting.
Snow White not being very very white does seem a tad egregious. In the latest movie she is kinda Hispanic and dusky
The whole point of the fairy tale is that she has snowy white skin. Hence her name
I’ve no problem with casting anyone as anyone, within reason, but when it actually destroys the basic premise of the story: then yes. I have a problem.
It's ironic because the Hispanic star, Rachel Zegler, rose to fame playing Maria in the Spielberg remake of West Side Story, where she took on the role (a Puerto Rican) that had been played by Natalie Wood, a white actress, in the original film. So perhaps this is some kind of payback. I wonder whether this will cause the same furore as when Disney remade the Little Mermaid with a black actor, Halle Bailey, in the title role - when everyone knows that mermaids are white!
I think the Halle Bailey Mermaid is fine. But I do get the point Leon is making about a character called 'Snow White' because of a specific characteristic but who then... wasn't.
Not that it is really worth falling out over
It's just her name though, it's not like she's Othello and her racial background is key to the whole story. The point is that she is young and beautiful and this angers her stepmother who is growing old - and the story dates from a time where having very fair skin was synonymous with beauty - which isn't really the case for Western beauty standards these days. Rachel Zegler is certainly very beautiful in a youthful and innocent kind of way, so I think it is decent casting.
But the reason she is called Snow White is coz her skin is white as snow. It’s not a frigging metaphor, it’s the basis of the story
Are you this bothered by Black Rod not being, er, black??
Has it been confirmed Johnson put Farage forward for a knighthood which was turned down by the committee ?
WTF? Seriously?
Seems so - madness if true
Which bit?
That there was pressure to give Farage some sort of bauble? (I mean, I think he is ghastly, but he was a significant figure in the genesis of Johnson's defining policy. No worse than some of Johnson's life peers.)
That Johnson wanted to give him said bauble? (Again, look at Johnson's honours lists.)
That the blob turned him down? (I don't know, none of us know, but perhaps the spooks know something that makes him unsuitable for an honour. It wouldn't be a shock, exactly.)
I don't think Charles would relish knighting him given his 'stupid' remarks about the suitcase of cash.
Now you've got me wondering...
What was the most personally awkward honouring that a monarch has had to be involved in? Of a "they have to be given something because of X but it's truly embarassing to put Her Maj through it" sort. (Presumably it gets delegated to some unfavoured junior royal instead.)
Wasn't there an HMG sponsored report that suggesting accentuating the positives for descendants of Carribean slaves?
"Relive your ancestors' thrilling journey across the Atlantic when we illegally deport you!"
I have genuinely outraged gammons on the internet by saying that a slave awaiting the middle passage at a barracoon, was in no better a position than a jew awaiting a train to auschwitz. The thinking is: one gets you a transatlantic cruise on a square rigged three master on the classic downwind trade wind route, to a Caribbean island with a job for life, accommodation included, and the other one gets you to auschwitz.
Well what you said was fairly ridiculous
Slavery was a barbaric crime on a global scale and the Middle Passage was a heinous part of it
But the USA has a large black population because millions of African slaves in the USA had children who had children who were then freed and who are now full fledged citizens of the USA
A Jew being chuffed to Auschwitz had about a 1 in 10,000 chance of surviving to have children. They were being sent there explicitly to die, and die horribly, en masse. A few who were even unluckier got to become victims of the some of the cruellest experiments in the history of human science, an even smaller number got picked for slave labour and somehow made it to the end
There are vanishingly few descendants of the 1.5m Jews (and others) who went to Auchswitz. They all died, as intended by the Nazis. Your statement was fatuous
I do find the concern about the colour of someones skin (or gender) in a work of fiction to be a strange concept. I think one of the best versions of David Copperfield I have ever seen was the 2019 version with Dev Patel. Just brilliant because all you could see was the quality of the acting.
It does worry me that we have this move towards claiming that minority characters can only be played by someone from that minority. It seems to undermine the whole point of acting.
Snow White not being very very white does seem a tad egregious. In the latest movie she is kinda Hispanic and dusky
The whole point of the fairy tale is that she has snowy white skin. Hence her name
I’ve no problem with casting anyone as anyone, within reason, but when it actually destroys the basic premise of the story: then yes. I have a problem.
It's ironic because the Hispanic star, Rachel Zegler, rose to fame playing Maria in the Spielberg remake of West Side Story, where she took on the role (a Puerto Rican) that had been played by Natalie Wood, a white actress, in the original film. So perhaps this is some kind of payback. I wonder whether this will cause the same furore as when Disney remade the Little Mermaid with a black actor, Halle Bailey, in the title role - when everyone knows that mermaids are white!
I think the Halle Bailey Mermaid is fine. But I do get the point Leon is making about a character called 'Snow White' because of a specific characteristic but who then... wasn't.
Not that it is really worth falling out over
It's just her name though, it's not like she's Othello and her racial background is key to the whole story. The point is that she is young and beautiful and this angers her stepmother who is growing old - and the story dates from a time where having very fair skin was synonymous with beauty - which isn't really the case for Western beauty standards these days. Rachel Zegler is certainly very beautiful in a youthful and innocent kind of way, so I think it is decent casting.
But the reason she is called Snow White is coz her skin is white as snow. It’s not a frigging metaphor, it’s the basis of the story
From the original Grimms’ Fairy Tale
“a queen sat at her window working, and her embroidery-frame was of ebony. And as she worked, gazing at times out on the snow, she pricked her finger, and there fell from it three drops of blood on the snow. And when she saw how bright and red it looked, she said to herself, "Oh that I had a child as white as snow, as red as blood, and as black as the wood of the embroidery frame!" Not very long after she had a daughter, with a skin as white as snow, lips as red as blood, and hair as black as ebony, and she was named Snow-white.”
I mean, that’s that. The Queen didn’t wish for a “beautiful Latinx daughter with a pure heart which could be unfairly termed ‘white’ in a racialised society’
She asked for a child as white as snow
Not really a lot of wriggle room there. The movie will likely bomb like so many recent Woke Disney efforts
It might, but not for that reason I would think.
Though at risk of losing liberal cred I've always taken the position that casting decisions really should be race blind unless there is a specific reason of character or story that means there is a significance to it - eg, if you want a reaslitic feeling historical film Benedict Cumberbatch playing Shaka Zulu would probably be an unnecessary distraction, whereas who gives a crap whether an alien Time Lord is white, black, female or any mixture of anything (so long as they are British, naturally), or if a fish person is any skin colour whatsoever? If a character's appearance is pretty specific and you decide to change that, for what reason and could you just do your own thing entirely? So I kind of get a moan about this one, given the reverse would be pilloried.
Wasn't there an HMG sponsored report that suggesting accentuating the positives for descendants of Carribean slaves?
"Relive your ancestors' thrilling journey across the Atlantic when we illegally deport you!"
I have genuinely outraged gammons on the internet by saying that a slave awaiting the middle passage at a barracoon, was in no better a position than a jew awaiting a train to auschwitz. The thinking is: one gets you a transatlantic cruise on a square rigged three master on the classic downwind trade wind route, to a Caribbean island with a job for life, accommodation included, and the other one gets you to auschwitz.
Well what you said was fairly ridiculous
Slavery was a barbaric crime on a global scale and the Middle Passage was a heinous part of it
But the USA has a large black population because millions of African slaves in the USA had children who had children who were then freed and who are now full fledged citizens of the USA
A Jew being chuffed to Auschwitz had about a 1 in 10,000 chance of surviving to have children. They were being sent there explicitly to die, and die horribly, en masse. A few who were even unluckier got to become victims of the some of the cruellest experiments in the history of human science, an even smaller number got picked for slave labour and somehow made it to the end
There are vanishingly few descendants of the 1.5m Jews (and others) who went to Auchswitz. They all died, as intended by the Nazis. Your statement was fatuous
Just pointed out below that a lot of Auschwitz inmates actually were sent there to work. Primo Levi, for one.
I do find the concern about the colour of someones skin (or gender) in a work of fiction to be a strange concept. I think one of the best versions of David Copperfield I have ever seen was the 2019 version with Dev Patel. Just brilliant because all you could see was the quality of the acting.
It does worry me that we have this move towards claiming that minority characters can only be played by someone from that minority. It seems to undermine the whole point of acting.
Snow White not being very very white does seem a tad egregious. In the latest movie she is kinda Hispanic and dusky
The whole point of the fairy tale is that she has snowy white skin. Hence her name
I’ve no problem with casting anyone as anyone, within reason, but when it actually destroys the basic premise of the story: then yes. I have a problem.
It's ironic because the Hispanic star, Rachel Zegler, rose to fame playing Maria in the Spielberg remake of West Side Story, where she took on the role (a Puerto Rican) that had been played by Natalie Wood, a white actress, in the original film. So perhaps this is some kind of payback. I wonder whether this will cause the same furore as when Disney remade the Little Mermaid with a black actor, Halle Bailey, in the title role - when everyone knows that mermaids are white!
I think the Halle Bailey Mermaid is fine. But I do get the point Leon is making about a character called 'Snow White' because of a specific characteristic but who then... wasn't.
Not that it is really worth falling out over
It's just her name though, it's not like she's Othello and her racial background is key to the whole story. The point is that she is young and beautiful and this angers her stepmother who is growing old - and the story dates from a time where having very fair skin was synonymous with beauty - which isn't really the case for Western beauty standards these days. Rachel Zegler is certainly very beautiful in a youthful and innocent kind of way, so I think it is decent casting.
But the reason she is called Snow White is coz her skin is white as snow. It’s not a frigging metaphor, it’s the basis of the story
Are you this bothered by Black Rod not being, er, black??
The joke doesn't work with a title, and one obviously named for a stick being held, not the person.
I do find the concern about the colour of someones skin (or gender) in a work of fiction to be a strange concept. I think one of the best versions of David Copperfield I have ever seen was the 2019 version with Dev Patel. Just brilliant because all you could see was the quality of the acting.
It does worry me that we have this move towards claiming that minority characters can only be played by someone from that minority. It seems to undermine the whole point of acting.
Snow White not being very very white does seem a tad egregious. In the latest movie she is kinda Hispanic and dusky
The whole point of the fairy tale is that she has snowy white skin. Hence her name
I’ve no problem with casting anyone as anyone, within reason, but when it actually destroys the basic premise of the story: then yes. I have a problem.
It's ironic because the Hispanic star, Rachel Zegler, rose to fame playing Maria in the Spielberg remake of West Side Story, where she took on the role (a Puerto Rican) that had been played by Natalie Wood, a white actress, in the original film. So perhaps this is some kind of payback. I wonder whether this will cause the same furore as when Disney remade the Little Mermaid with a black actor, Halle Bailey, in the title role - when everyone knows that mermaids are white!
I think the Halle Bailey Mermaid is fine. But I do get the point Leon is making about a character called 'Snow White' because of a specific characteristic but who then... wasn't.
Not that it is really worth falling out over
It's just her name though, it's not like she's Othello and her racial background is key to the whole story. The point is that she is young and beautiful and this angers her stepmother who is growing old - and the story dates from a time where having very fair skin was synonymous with beauty - which isn't really the case for Western beauty standards these days. Rachel Zegler is certainly very beautiful in a youthful and innocent kind of way, so I think it is decent casting.
But the reason she is called Snow White is coz her skin is white as snow. It’s not a frigging metaphor, it’s the basis of the story
From the original Grimms’ Fairy Tale
“a queen sat at her window working, and her embroidery-frame was of ebony. And as she worked, gazing at times out on the snow, she pricked her finger, and there fell from it three drops of blood on the snow. And when she saw how bright and red it looked, she said to herself, "Oh that I had a child as white as snow, as red as blood, and as black as the wood of the embroidery frame!" Not very long after she had a daughter, with a skin as white as snow, lips as red as blood, and hair as black as ebony, and she was named Snow-white.”
I mean, that’s that. The Queen didn’t wish for a “beautiful Latinx daughter with a pure heart which could be unfairly termed ‘white’ in a racialised society’
She asked for a child as white as snow
Not really a lot of wriggle room there. The movie will likely bomb like so many recent Woke Disney efforts
It might, but not for that reason I would think.
Though at risk of losing liberal cred I've always taken the position that casting decisions really should be race blind unless there is a specific reason of character or story that means there is a significance to it - eg, if you want a reaslitic feeling historical film Benedict Cumberbatch playing Shaka Zulu would probably be an unnecessary distraction, whereas who gives a crap whether an alien Time Lord is white, black, female or any mixture of anything (so long as they are British, naturally), or if a fish person is any skin colour whatsoever? If a character's appearance is pretty specific and you decide to change that, for what reason and could you just do your own thing entirely? So I kind of get a moan about this one, given the reverse would be pilloried.
These movies bomb because Hollywood is now heavily dependant on Chinese and other global audiences to make really major profits, and these audiences object to Wokeness big time
It is one of the reasons we won’t see a black James Bond
It’s a shame as I think Idris Elba is made for the part. He has exactly the right mix of major masculinity, macho sexuality, with a hint of cruelty if needed. And he’s a fine actor (wasted in that Hijack crap)
Evening all, "Sir Nigel Farage" would sum up the state of utterly backward Ruritanian stupidity that Britain has got itself into.
So give the man a gong, I say ; you need to acknowledge you have a problem first, if you want to deal with it.
As the saying goes there is little honour when it comes to honours. There's some horrible people with them. Plus you can pretty much purchase one easy enough.
Farage's biggest problems to getting one are a) he is now far more irrelevant than he was (The Tories will likely lose regardless of what Reform do), and b) he is so desperately needy about getting an honour through his media allies and proxies moaning about it that it'd be almost embarrassing to given him one now.
I do find the concern about the colour of someones skin (or gender) in a work of fiction to be a strange concept. I think one of the best versions of David Copperfield I have ever seen was the 2019 version with Dev Patel. Just brilliant because all you could see was the quality of the acting.
It does worry me that we have this move towards claiming that minority characters can only be played by someone from that minority. It seems to undermine the whole point of acting.
Snow White not being very very white does seem a tad egregious. In the latest movie she is kinda Hispanic and dusky
The whole point of the fairy tale is that she has snowy white skin. Hence her name
I’ve no problem with casting anyone as anyone, within reason, but when it actually destroys the basic premise of the story: then yes. I have a problem.
It's ironic because the Hispanic star, Rachel Zegler, rose to fame playing Maria in the Spielberg remake of West Side Story, where she took on the role (a Puerto Rican) that had been played by Natalie Wood, a white actress, in the original film. So perhaps this is some kind of payback. I wonder whether this will cause the same furore as when Disney remade the Little Mermaid with a black actor, Halle Bailey, in the title role - when everyone knows that mermaids are white!
I think the Halle Bailey Mermaid is fine. But I do get the point Leon is making about a character called 'Snow White' because of a specific characteristic but who then... wasn't.
Not that it is really worth falling out over
It's just her name though, it's not like she's Othello and her racial background is key to the whole story. The point is that she is young and beautiful and this angers her stepmother who is growing old - and the story dates from a time where having very fair skin was synonymous with beauty - which isn't really the case for Western beauty standards these days. Rachel Zegler is certainly very beautiful in a youthful and innocent kind of way, so I think it is decent casting.
But the reason she is called Snow White is coz her skin is white as snow. It’s not a frigging metaphor, it’s the basis of the story
From the original Grimms’ Fairy Tale
“a queen sat at her window working, and her embroidery-frame was of ebony. And as she worked, gazing at times out on the snow, she pricked her finger, and there fell from it three drops of blood on the snow. And when she saw how bright and red it looked, she said to herself, "Oh that I had a child as white as snow, as red as blood, and as black as the wood of the embroidery frame!" Not very long after she had a daughter, with a skin as white as snow, lips as red as blood, and hair as black as ebony, and she was named Snow-white.”
I mean, that’s that. The Queen didn’t wish for a “beautiful Latinx daughter with a pure heart which could be unfairly termed ‘white’ in a racialised society’
She asked for a child as white as snow
Not really a lot of wriggle room there. The movie will likely bomb like so many recent Woke Disney efforts
It might, but not for that reason I would think.
Though at risk of losing liberal cred I've always taken the position that casting decisions really should be race blind unless there is a specific reason of character or story that means there is a significance to it - eg, if you want a reaslitic feeling historical film Benedict Cumberbatch playing Shaka Zulu would probably be an unnecessary distraction, whereas who gives a crap whether an alien Time Lord is white, black, female or any mixture of anything (so long as they are British, naturally), or if a fish person is any skin colour whatsoever? If a character's appearance is pretty specific and you decide to change that, for what reason and could you just do your own thing entirely? So I kind of get a moan about this one, given the reverse would be pilloried.
These movies bomb because Hollywood is now heavily dependant on Chinese and other global audiences to make really major profits, and these audiences object to Wokeness big time
It is one of the reasons we won’t see a black James Bond
Why are you so obsessed with skin colour? Time and time again you raise some perceived gripe or outrage which boils down to somebody's skin colour.
Comments
If they're unlucky they will end up taking an early lunch with no play in the morning. The forecast improves as the day goes on, but there are still showers about right up until the scheduled close of play.
Maybe they will be lucky. Maybe they will mostly miss the showers, and play will resume quickly after the few that do still arrive. I stand by what I said earlier - I think there's a good chance that there will be less than 80 overs of play left in this Test match.
I would declare overnight.
And 21 other items.
Correction: BY-elections!
AM challenging your assertion, that anyone watching it as an adult knows it's shit.
Cause it AIN'T that AND because I am an adult. Chronologically anyway!
What kind of coverage might we see in the Independent and Evening Standard if the trouble snowballs from the Farage story which it may well do?
Somerset and DOOM
Sell-(shares in the Tory Party)-by and Angsty
Cluster-F-Uxbridge
For the Tories??
*yes this isn't one of my more sparkling posts.
Why not get them when there is no pressure and you can just whack the ball to all corners? Chasing even 100 on a wicket which looks like it might start doing funny things might take much longer than just getting them up front.
100 more if possible, at 8+ an over, ditto.
The UKV forecast on which that is based suggests the showers will clear away by lunch, and has Sunday mostly dry.
I think there's plenty of time for England to win this.
Sadly the Oval may be a full washout...
TL;DR. I enjoyed the remake, but if I had a spare hour and a half, I'd watch the original. And that's what it is competing against.
Pretty remarkable, how the Party of LINCOLN is positively (in a sense) essentially the same pro-slavery arguments deployed by John C Calhoun, Jefferson Davis and fellow antebellum slave-drivers.
Ditto grotesque, disgusting and (IMHO) self-defeating.
Somewhat like how Freedom Caucus determined Marjorie Taylor Greene is a Woke libtard Rhino?
(Just kidding . . . in YOUR case!)
Would expect to get some turnout numbers within a couple hours (maybe)?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Alexander_Hamilton_Stephens.jpg
For example, perhaps "Thelma and Louise" has it (first example coming to my fool head) but female GB doesn't?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj_aHCpZl4k
Looking forward to buying the new Blur album on CD tomorrow - release day!
I don’t think it works to lure Australia to try to win this time, because they are comfortable with a draw. You want them hanging on for dear life with no hope of victory, like England in the 1990s.
My own guess is Chernivtsi aka Чернівці́, Cernăuți, Czernowitz
Once capital of Bukovina, before 1918 the ass-end of the Austrian half of the Habsburg Empire; part of Romania before WW2, in 1949 the norther half was seized by Stalin and annexed into (then) Ukrainian SSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernivtsi
I don't think any of the results will declare quickly. Better to log on tomorrow morning to fit the discussion on the results around that on the cricket 👍
https://order-order.com/2023/07/20/labours-just-stop-oil-loving-bankroller-to-launch-emission-intensive-domestic-airline/
The Just Stop Oil Labour donor guy is launching a domestic airline. Yes folks, the most polluting form of travel of them all.
EDIT: Ooops! Wrong forum
I gave up on poor Jodie’s Doctor after a couple of episodes. Not her fault.
I like the way that Uxbridge and Selby have pretty much stayed at their pre-poll levels.
(Jokes aside there's been some LD form in this)
IT WAS the middle of winter, and the snow-flakes were falling like feathers from the sky, and a Queen sat at her window working, and her embroidery-frame was of ebony. And as she worked, gazing at times out on the snow, she pricked her finger, and there fell from it three drops of blood on the snow. And when she saw how bright and red it looked, she said to herself, “Oh that I had a child as white as snow, as red as blood, and as black as the wood of the embroidery frame!” Not very long after she had a daughter, with a skin as white as snow, lips as red as blood, and hair as black as ebony, and she was named Snow-white. And when she was born the Queen died...
Nigel Farage has been recommended for a knighthood "at least five times" but has been consistantly blocked by the "establishment" dominated committee of civil servants who have to approve honours, Express.co.uk has learnt.
It is understood the last person to put Mr Farage's name forward for an honour many believe he deserves was Boris Johnson while he was Prime Minister, only for the shadowy figures rubberstamp recommendations to snub the former Brexit and UKIP party leader.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1793424/nigel-farage-knighthood-boris-johnson-blocked
DYOR
He should.
They think it’s all over…?
Especially as, if I understand correctly, the main reason conventional fuel is being used initially is for the airline to get CAA approval.
From Bill Murray's impish rogue to Harold Ramis's scholarly nerd to Dan Akroyd's man-child to Annie Potts girl-Friday to Sigourney Weaver's baffled beauty to Rick Moranis's hopeful beast to William Atherton's obnoxious bureaucrat to Ernie Hudson's every-man.
The scenario I'm trying to avoid is Australia only being a couple of wickets down at the start of Sunday, more time lost so that they know they won't have to face a second new ball, and it doesn't seem too hard for them to play out a draw. It doesn't matter in that scenario if they're 200 or 300 runs behind, because they don't have to survive all that long.
https://conservativehome.com/2023/07/17/sunaks-future-and-his-reshuffle-he-prepares-to-tear-up-his-timetable-and-roll-the-dice/
Michael O'Leary is out in Dublin in a fancy new pub. They claim to have have the cheapest Guinness in Dublin.
"How much is it, then," he asks.
"3 euros a pint" replies the barman.
"3 Euros", says Michael, "I'll have one."
"Very good sir," says the barman. "Will you be wanting a glass with that?"
https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/1034269/view/caribbean-manatee-mother-with-baby
OK, regardless of HOW many, more than you can cram aboard a Boris Bus.
However, same argument also could (and probably was) raised re: Horatio Bottomley and Jeffrey Archer, to name but two.
That there was pressure to give Farage some sort of bauble? (I mean, I think he is ghastly, but he was a significant figure in the genesis of Johnson's defining policy. No worse than some of Johnson's life peers.)
That Johnson wanted to give him said bauble? (Again, look at Johnson's honours lists.)
That the blob turned him down? (I don't know, none of us know, but perhaps the spooks know something that makes him unsuitable for an honour. It wouldn't be a shock, exactly.)
From the original Grimms’ Fairy Tale
“a queen sat at her window working, and her embroidery-frame was of ebony. And as she worked, gazing at times out on the snow, she pricked her finger, and there fell from it three drops of blood on the snow. And when she saw how bright and red it looked, she said to herself, "Oh that I had a child as white as snow, as red as blood, and as black as the wood of the embroidery frame!" Not very long after she had a daughter, with a skin as white as snow, lips as red as blood, and hair as black as ebony, and she was named Snow-white.”
I mean, that’s that. The Queen didn’t wish for a “beautiful Latinx daughter with a pure heart which could be unfairly termed ‘white’ in a racialised society’
She asked for a child as white as snow
Not really a lot of wriggle room there. The movie will likely bomb like so many recent Woke Disney efforts
Sir Michael Fabricant
Sir Edward Leigh
not seeing the issue here
What was the most personally awkward honouring that a monarch has had to be involved in? Of a "they have to be given something because of X but it's truly embarassing to put Her Maj through it" sort. (Presumably it gets delegated to some unfavoured junior royal instead.)
So give the man a gong, I say ; you need to acknowledge you have a problem first, if you want to deal with it.
Slavery was a barbaric crime on a global scale and the Middle Passage was a heinous part of it
But the USA has a large black population because millions of African slaves in the USA had children who had children who were then freed and who are now full fledged citizens of the USA
A Jew being chuffed to Auschwitz had about a 1 in 10,000 chance of surviving to have children. They were being sent there explicitly to die, and die horribly, en masse. A few who were even unluckier got to become victims of the some of the cruellest experiments in the history of human science, an even smaller number got picked for slave labour and somehow made it to the end
There are vanishingly few descendants of the 1.5m Jews (and others) who went to Auchswitz. They all died, as intended by the Nazis. Your statement was fatuous
Though at risk of losing liberal cred I've always taken the position that casting decisions really should be race blind unless there is a specific reason of character or story that means there is a significance to it - eg, if you want a reaslitic feeling historical film Benedict Cumberbatch playing Shaka Zulu would probably be an unnecessary distraction, whereas who gives a crap whether an alien Time Lord is white, black, female or any mixture of anything (so long as they are British, naturally), or if a fish person is any skin colour whatsoever? If a character's appearance is pretty specific and you decide to change that, for what reason and could you just do your own thing entirely? So I kind of get a moan about this one, given the reverse would be pilloried.
It is one of the reasons we won’t see a black James Bond
It’s a shame as I think Idris Elba is made for the part. He has exactly the right mix of major masculinity, macho sexuality, with a hint of cruelty if needed. And he’s a fine actor (wasted in that Hijack crap)
Farage's biggest problems to getting one are a) he is now far more irrelevant than he was (The Tories will likely lose regardless of what Reform do), and b) he is so desperately needy about getting an honour through his media allies and proxies moaning about it that it'd be almost embarrassing to given him one now.
What is your problem?