Incidentally, for all those of you who are discussing Oppenheimer, please note that Barbie and Oppenheimer are now grossing so hard they're squeezing MI:7pt1 out. Having lost the IMAX screens to Oppenheimer and now losing the multiplexes to B/O, Mission Impossible will end up losing a considerable chunk of its profits. Its like those old films where they stop oil fires with explosives.
Cook-at-home meal deals ‘should be banned to tackle obesity’ A cross-party committee of MPs has recommended the move as part of a broader crackdown on junk food promotions'
'Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, said in June: “I firmly believe in people’s right to choose – and at a time when household budgets are under continuing pressure from the global rise in food prices, it is not fair for government to restrict the options available to consumers on their weekly shop.”
That is truly bonkers. What they describe as "meal deals" are a starter, a main and a side. Perhaps they should ban people having multiple courses in a restaurant as well.
However, there's soemthing odd going on with those meal deals anyway in terms of inflation, as @kinabalu (I think) was remarking the other day, quite coincidentally.
One other way of superkarkets dealing with inflation is to reduce product quality so I wonder if there is a bit of that going on here.
Superkarket is genius branding for the co-op funeral service
Or the mass market version of Dignitas.
Checkout at the checkouts.
Don't knock it - the local Co-op funerals branch does a good job.
Cook-at-home meal deals ‘should be banned to tackle obesity’ A cross-party committee of MPs has recommended the move as part of a broader crackdown on junk food promotions'
'Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, said in June: “I firmly believe in people’s right to choose – and at a time when household budgets are under continuing pressure from the global rise in food prices, it is not fair for government to restrict the options available to consumers on their weekly shop.”
That is truly bonkers. What they describe as "meal deals" are a starter, a main and a side. Perhaps they should ban people having multiple courses in a restaurant as well.
However, there's soemthing odd going on with those meal deals anyway in terms of inflation, as @kinabalu (I think) was remarking the other day, quite coincidentally.
One other way of superkarkets dealing with inflation is to reduce product quality so I wonder if there is a bit of that going on here.
Superkarket is genius branding for the co-op funeral service
Or the mass market version of Dignitas.
Checkout at the checkouts.
Don't knock it - the local Co-op funerals branch does a good job.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
But I don't think disabled character = disabled actor because that might run the risk of typecasting disabled actors as only being able to play disabled roles.
That is the problem with the trend of authenticity, which is bollocks. It often starts from a real issue - lack of representation for certain groups, or stereotypical roles only - but the solution to that cannot be authenticity, because then that locks the same groups out from other roles, and will inevitably severely limit every actor's ability to be flexible in a role.
The issue of representation of groups has already improved, even with more to do the Sheen approach is just counter productive. Baddiel highlights a reasonable point when he notes people applying that kind of approach often seem to have made an exception for jews, but his solution of extending that approach rather than ending it is wrong, in my view. I wasn't convinced by it in his book and am not now.
I liked his book but that was politics. This is something different. No reason why you can't have Cush Jumbo playing Hamlet, Hugh Grant playing Golda Meir, or Michael Balogun playing Emanuel Lehman.
Possibly non-coincidentally, the trailer for "Golda" came out a few days ago, with the entirely non-Jewish Helen Mirren playing Prime Minister of Israel Golda Meir.
Cook-at-home meal deals ‘should be banned to tackle obesity’ A cross-party committee of MPs has recommended the move as part of a broader crackdown on junk food promotions'
'Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, said in June: “I firmly believe in people’s right to choose – and at a time when household budgets are under continuing pressure from the global rise in food prices, it is not fair for government to restrict the options available to consumers on their weekly shop.”
That is truly bonkers. What they describe as "meal deals" are a starter, a main and a side. Perhaps they should ban people having multiple courses in a restaurant as well.
However, there's soemthing odd going on with those meal deals anyway in terms of inflation, as @kinabalu (I think) was remarking the other day, quite coincidentally.
One other way of superkarkets dealing with inflation is to reduce product quality so I wonder if there is a bit of that going on here.
Superkarket is genius branding for the co-op funeral service
Or the mass market version of Dignitas.
Checkout at the checkouts.
Don't knock it - the local Co-op funerals branch does a good job.
Bairstow apparently knocked the bail off too early.
BFWHDT.
That was seriously close and Bairstow certainly complicated it but the closer you looked the more out it looked.
Bluntly, I think it was out. I think the umpire got it wrong.
But - it makes no difference what I think. The scorecard shows him still in.
Was the ball in his glove when he broke the stumps? The replay on the BBC website doesn't show it very clearly.
As I understand the rules if the bail was off before the ball was in Bairstow's gloves, just breaking the stumps with ball in hand wouldn't be enough to run Smith out.
The issue is - I'm not convinced the bail was 'off' within the meaning of the act.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
Yep, and even with the latter it's not *just* about acting ability. Eg Hugh Grant was great as Jeremy Thorpe but you couldn't cast him as Golda Meir. Or rather you could - there's no law against it - but expect a backlash if you do and it'd be wholly merited imo.
As per my post to @Richard_Tyndall where do you stand on Michael Balogun playing a white Jewish Lehman brother?
That sounds ok and I'll take your word that it was. Hugh Grant as Golda Meir however - different story. I think I'd struggle with that. He could act it up a storm but still, no. Not for me.
Cook-at-home meal deals ‘should be banned to tackle obesity’ A cross-party committee of MPs has recommended the move as part of a broader crackdown on junk food promotions'
'Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, said in June: “I firmly believe in people’s right to choose – and at a time when household budgets are under continuing pressure from the global rise in food prices, it is not fair for government to restrict the options available to consumers on their weekly shop.”
That is truly bonkers. What they describe as "meal deals" are a starter, a main and a side. Perhaps they should ban people having multiple courses in a restaurant as well.
However, there's soemthing odd going on with those meal deals anyway in terms of inflation, as @kinabalu (I think) was remarking the other day, quite coincidentally.
One other way of superkarkets dealing with inflation is to reduce product quality so I wonder if there is a bit of that going on here.
Superkarket is genius branding for the co-op funeral service
Or the mass market version of Dignitas.
Checkout at the checkouts.
Don't knock it - the local Co-op funerals branch does a good job.
Bairstow apparently knocked the bail off too early.
BFWHDT.
That was seriously close and Bairstow certainly complicated it but the closer you looked the more out it looked.
Bluntly, I think it was out. I think the umpire got it wrong.
But - it makes no difference what I think. The scorecard shows him still in.
Was the ball in his glove when he broke the stumps? The replay on the BBC website doesn't show it very clearly.
As I understand the rules if the bail was off before the ball was in Bairstow's gloves, just breaking the stumps with ball in hand wouldn't be enough to run Smith out.
The issue is - I'm not convinced the bail was 'off' within the meaning of the act.
Cook-at-home meal deals ‘should be banned to tackle obesity’ A cross-party committee of MPs has recommended the move as part of a broader crackdown on junk food promotions'
'Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, said in June: “I firmly believe in people’s right to choose – and at a time when household budgets are under continuing pressure from the global rise in food prices, it is not fair for government to restrict the options available to consumers on their weekly shop.”
That is truly bonkers. What they describe as "meal deals" are a starter, a main and a side. Perhaps they should ban people having multiple courses in a restaurant as well.
However, there's soemthing odd going on with those meal deals anyway in terms of inflation, as @kinabalu (I think) was remarking the other day, quite coincidentally.
One other way of superkarkets dealing with inflation is to reduce product quality so I wonder if there is a bit of that going on here.
Superkarket is genius branding for the co-op funeral service
Or the mass market version of Dignitas.
Checkout at the checkouts.
Don't knock it - the local Co-op funerals branch does a good job.
There is also a small amount of American country music in Africa, as I learned from a NYT article some years ago. A young Kenyan woman was aspiring to be the Dolly Parton of her hill country. (She looked quite fetching on the horse she was riding. And, as has often happened with US country singers, she got her start singing in a church choir.)
There are worse role models.
Country music tapes and CDs were on sale in Malawi when I was there a decade ago, and quite popular with locals, alongside soul, reggae, rap and kwaito. As a style country music requires a good singing voice and simple themes, and sounds good even on a fairly tinny system.
The odd thing about what Bairstow did with the run out is that for a few frames on the replay he completely moved the stumps out of their normal position without the bails leaving the grooves, which must be a very unlikely set of circumstances to happen. You probably couldn't do it deliberately if you tried.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
But I don't think disabled character = disabled actor because that might run the risk of typecasting disabled actors as only being able to play disabled roles.
That is the problem with the trend of authenticity, which is bollocks. It often starts from a real issue - lack of representation for certain groups, or stereotypical roles only - but the solution to that cannot be authenticity, because then that locks the same groups out from other roles, and will inevitably severely limit every actor's ability to be flexible in a role.
The issue of representation of groups has already improved, even with more to do the Sheen approach is just counter productive. Baddiel highlights a reasonable point when he notes people applying that kind of approach often seem to have made an exception for jews, but his solution of extending that approach rather than ending it is wrong, in my view. I wasn't convinced by it in his book and am not now.
I liked his book but that was politics. This is something different. No reason why you can't have Cush Jumbo playing Hamlet, Hugh Grant playing Golda Meir, or Michael Balogun playing Emanuel Lehman.
Possibly non-coincidentally, the trailer for "Golda" came out a few days ago, with the entirely non-Jewish Helen Mirren playing Prime Minister of Israel Golda Meir.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
Yep, and even with the latter it's not *just* about acting ability. Eg Hugh Grant was great as Jeremy Thorpe but you couldn't cast him as Golda Meir. Or rather you could - there's no law against it - but expect a backlash if you do and it'd be wholly merited imo.
As per my post to @Richard_Tyndall where do you stand on Michael Balogun playing a white Jewish Lehman brother?
That sounds ok and I'll take your word that it was. Hugh Grant as Golda Meir however - different story. I think I'd struggle with that. He could act it up a storm but still, no. Not for me.
Tropic Thunder is now apparently “problematic” due to Robert Downie Junior in black-face even though the point of him in black face is so over the top ridiculous to mock method acting and the idea that a white man can understand the reality of a black man in Vietnam and therefore is patently an anti-racism stance.
Off topic: But I think some of you will be interested in this unknown -- but not deservedly -- presidential candidate: 'North Dakota’s governor was exasperated. North Korean hackers were targeting the families of soldiers who guard the Minuteman missile silos in the state, fishing for information. Gov. Doug Burgum asked the Pentagon for help and was told that the Defense Department’s cybersecurity personnel were stretched to their capacities. He has the impatience of someone not only knowledgeable about cyber things but whose mental processes orient him toward a future that can be, he believes, glittering — if we will just get out of our own way: “innovation, not regulation.”'
Burgum founded a successful software company in North Dakota, sold it to Microsoft, worked for that company for some years, and was first elected governor in 2016.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
Yep, and even with the latter it's not *just* about acting ability. Eg Hugh Grant was great as Jeremy Thorpe but you couldn't cast him as Golda Meir. Or rather you could - there's no law against it - but expect a backlash if you do and it'd be wholly merited imo.
As per my post to @Richard_Tyndall where do you stand on Michael Balogun playing a white Jewish Lehman brother?
That sounds ok and I'll take your word that it was. Hugh Grant as Golda Meir however - different story. I think I'd struggle with that. He could act it up a storm but still, no. Not for me.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
Yep, and even with the latter it's not *just* about acting ability. Eg Hugh Grant was great as Jeremy Thorpe but you couldn't cast him as Golda Meir. Or rather you could - there's no law against it - but expect a backlash if you do and it'd be wholly merited imo.
As per my post to @Richard_Tyndall where do you stand on Michael Balogun playing a white Jewish Lehman brother?
That sounds ok and I'll take your word that it was. Hugh Grant as Golda Meir however - different story. I think I'd struggle with that. He could act it up a storm but still, no. Not for me.
Tropic Thunder is now apparently “problematic” due to Robert Downie Junior in black-face even though the point of him in black face is so over the top ridiculous to mock method acting and the idea that a white man can understand the reality of a black man in Vietnam and therefore is patently an anti-racism stance.
Quite a few black people give Tropic Thunder as an example of doing black face right. For the reasons you give.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.
Look, I've said it again.
Nah, this is as daft in its way as those who claim that James Bond can't be a black man or that the utterly brilliant David Copperfield wasn't proper Dickens because of its multi-cultural cast. What matters is the direction and the acting, not the physical or racial characteristics of the actors, unless they are fundemental to the story itself. And even then it is possible to do great things. Patrick Stewart's white Othello in an otherwise all black cast was amazing and gave a really good new perspective to the play. .
You put your finger on it ... if they are fundamental to the story itself
That's what I'm saying. It's about exactly that. The role and the context of the role in the story. Which requires a judgement each time. Therefore no Rules, case by case. Same as so many things really.
Nope because you are ignoring the following sentence. Othello being black is fundemental to the story because it is first and foremost a story of racism. And yet having a white Othello does nthing to detract from that if played in the right way.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.
Look, I've said it again.
Nah, this is as daft in its way as those who claim that James Bond can't be a black man or that the utterly brilliant David Copperfield wasn't proper Dickens because of its multi-cultural cast. What matters is the direction and the acting, not the physical or racial characteristics of the actors, unless they are fundemental to the story itself. And even then it is possible to do great things. Patrick Stewart's white Othello in an otherwise all black cast was amazing and gave a really good new perspective to the play. .
You put your finger on it ... if they are fundamental to the story itself
That's what I'm saying. It's about exactly that. The role and the context of the role in the story. Which requires a judgement each time. Therefore no Rules, case by case. Same as so many things really.
Indeed. I'd suggest it rarely will be fundamental, outside of biopics and attempts at intense historical accuracy (which most films are not attempting).
The Othello example was probably a good one, because it seems fundamental and a complete random mix in the casting would presumably undermine part of the point, whereas a reversal of the regular approach still allows for the role to be appropriate in context.
I think most 'out of the box' castings are fine. And if they don't quite work, so what, worth a try.
But not (eg) Grant as Golda Meir. Or, to go into fiction, what about casting Sydney Poitier instead of Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch in Mocking Bird? I think I'd say no to that too. For the same reason - because of the role and the context of the role in the story.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.
Look, I've said it again.
Nah, this is as daft in its way as those who claim that James Bond can't be a black man or that the utterly brilliant David Copperfield wasn't proper Dickens because of its multi-cultural cast. What matters is the direction and the acting, not the physical or racial characteristics of the actors, unless they are fundemental to the story itself. And even then it is possible to do great things. Patrick Stewart's white Othello in an otherwise all black cast was amazing and gave a really good new perspective to the play. .
You put your finger on it ... if they are fundamental to the story itself
That's what I'm saying. It's about exactly that. The role and the context of the role in the story. Which requires a judgement each time. Therefore no Rules, case by case. Same as so many things really.
Nope because you are igoring the following sentence. Othello being black is fundemental to the story because it is first and foremost a story of racism. And yet having a white Othello does nthing to detract from that if played in the right way.
I haven't seen that but I think it can detract. It depends. Eg a black Atticus Finch. It might work but only as a kind of outre experiment race-reversing all the other parts too.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.
Look, I've said it again.
Nah, this is as daft in its way as those who claim that James Bond can't be a black man or that the utterly brilliant David Copperfield wasn't proper Dickens because of its multi-cultural cast. What matters is the direction and the acting, not the physical or racial characteristics of the actors, unless they are fundemental to the story itself. And even then it is possible to do great things. Patrick Stewart's white Othello in an otherwise all black cast was amazing and gave a really good new perspective to the play. .
You put your finger on it ... if they are fundamental to the story itself
That's what I'm saying. It's about exactly that. The role and the context of the role in the story. Which requires a judgement each time. Therefore no Rules, case by case. Same as so many things really.
Nope because you are ignoring the following sentence. Othello being black is fundemental to the story because it is first and foremost a story of racism. And yet having a white Othello does nthing to detract from that if played in the right way.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.
Look, I've said it again.
Nah, this is as daft in its way as those who claim that James Bond can't be a black man or that the utterly brilliant David Copperfield wasn't proper Dickens because of its multi-cultural cast. What matters is the direction and the acting, not the physical or racial characteristics of the actors, unless they are fundemental to the story itself. And even then it is possible to do great things. Patrick Stewart's white Othello in an otherwise all black cast was amazing and gave a really good new perspective to the play. .
You put your finger on it ... if they are fundamental to the story itself
That's what I'm saying. It's about exactly that. The role and the context of the role in the story. Which requires a judgement each time. Therefore no Rules, case by case. Same as so many things really.
Nope because you are ignoring the following sentence. Othello being black is fundemental to the story because it is first and foremost a story of racism. And yet having a white Othello does nthing to detract from that if played in the right way.
Baddiel's point, though, is that Oppenheimer isn't.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.
Look, I've said it again.
Nah, this is as daft in its way as those who claim that James Bond can't be a black man or that the utterly brilliant David Copperfield wasn't proper Dickens because of its multi-cultural cast. What matters is the direction and the acting, not the physical or racial characteristics of the actors, unless they are fundemental to the story itself. And even then it is possible to do great things. Patrick Stewart's white Othello in an otherwise all black cast was amazing and gave a really good new perspective to the play. .
You put your finger on it ... if they are fundamental to the story itself
That's what I'm saying. It's about exactly that. The role and the context of the role in the story. Which requires a judgement each time. Therefore no Rules, case by case. Same as so many things really.
Nope because you are ignoring the following sentence. Othello being black is fundemental to the story because it is first and foremost a story of racism. And yet having a white Othello does nthing to detract from that if played in the right way.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
Yep, and even with the latter it's not *just* about acting ability. Eg Hugh Grant was great as Jeremy Thorpe but you couldn't cast him as Golda Meir. Or rather you could - there's no law against it - but expect a backlash if you do and it'd be wholly merited imo.
As per my post to @Richard_Tyndall where do you stand on Michael Balogun playing a white Jewish Lehman brother?
That sounds ok and I'll take your word that it was. Hugh Grant as Golda Meir however - different story. I think I'd struggle with that. He could act it up a storm but still, no. Not for me.
It's acting, dear boy. Free yourself.
Perhaps if it was a comedy. But what sort of comedy would that be? Rather crass if you ask me.
Cook-at-home meal deals ‘should be banned to tackle obesity’ A cross-party committee of MPs has recommended the move as part of a broader crackdown on junk food promotions'
'Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, said in June: “I firmly believe in people’s right to choose – and at a time when household budgets are under continuing pressure from the global rise in food prices, it is not fair for government to restrict the options available to consumers on their weekly shop.”
That is truly bonkers. What they describe as "meal deals" are a starter, a main and a side. Perhaps they should ban people having multiple courses in a restaurant as well.
However, there's soemthing odd going on with those meal deals anyway in terms of inflation, as @kinabalu (I think) was remarking the other day, quite coincidentally.
One other way of superkarkets dealing with inflation is to reduce product quality so I wonder if there is a bit of that going on here.
Superkarket is genius branding for the co-op funeral service
Or the mass market version of Dignitas.
Checkout at the checkouts.
Don't knock it - the local Co-op funerals branch does a good job.
Into the low 40s Celsius all along the front line in Ukraine next week.
Lots of talk of historical wars being affected by freezing temperatures but I’d guess heatwaves could be a big problem too. Perhaps one advantage of trenches.
Britain has a great record on decarbonising its electricity grid, despite the decline of its nuclear power generation.
That's actually a question it's possible to answer using the very helpful ourworldindate website.
As of 2022 solar made up 2.52% of Chinese electricity generation and 1.79% of UK generation. That's before this year's massive installation (though note they refer to capacity which is not the same as generation - capacity is what they would generate if it were midday and cloudless 24 hours a day).
On total renewables, in China these make up 16% of generation and in the UK 19.3%. Both countries have been decarbonising rapidly although the current pace in China is greater - they have more potential to decarbonise further because they have much more coal in the mix. Coal has already declined from 74% of generation in China in 2007 (the most recent peak) to 55% now.
This is good news. It negates a couple of common arguments: first that there's a trade off between decarbonisation and economic growth and that it's unfair of the West to insist the rest of the world denies itself fossil fuels - China shows it's perfectly possible to grow and decarbonise. Second that there's no point in the UK doing anything because China isn't. That's also not true. It's a bit more true to India frankly. And Russia of course. But they will lose out in the long run if they insist on dirty grids.
There was only one question in my post and all your data didn't answer it. How big was the Chinese 2023 H1 installation of solar as a percentage of their total grid?
Will it take that 2.52% up to 2.54%, or 2.72%, or 4.52% (assuming the same weather, and consequently capacity factor for the new solar capacity)?
That's the relevant factor when deciding whether or not it is a good step forward for net zero, or a case of too little too slow.
I’m not sure why you’re wanting to argue about this Twitter-style.
It’s not as easy to do the maths here because the new installations are in GW while total generation is by TwH per year, so you have to divide it (around 40,000 TwH) by the number of hours in the year (8,760 apparently) so that’s 4,566 GW generation on average.
The new installations in terms of capacity are therefore about 1.6%. Which would be huge. Almost doubling in 6 months. Except it’s not because that’s capacity. So you have to adjust for output vs capacity. Which ourworldindata helpfully suggests is about 1/8. So more like 0.2% added in half a year or 0.4% annualised. So it takes that 2.5 up to 2.9 in a year.
Pretty good I think. That’s a lot of panels. The UK also brings significant offshore wind onstream in chunks at a time. In the record year of 2021 around 2GW which is about 3% of capacity (again before adjusting for efficiency).
I'm not arguing with you particularly, but with the OP's comparison (for which they must have done similar calculations), which tells no-one anything of use, but it's simply made to bash Britain in an area where, unusually, Britain is actually doing quite well.
Thanks for indulging me and doing the calculations. I agree that +0.4% in a half year is impressive, and presumably their rate of installations is still increasing.
Ditto Scoop's long-time (in fact senior) partner and Democratic colleague from The Evergreen State in US Senate, namely "Maggie" = Warren Magnuson.
While Magnuson lacked Jackson's foreign policy credentials and resultant international recognition, he was a major force on the domestic front, and (along with Jackson) for WA State industry AND labor unions esp. Boeing and related aerospace and defense.
Scoop Jackson never lost an election EXCEPT when he ran for President. In WA State he was just about as popular with Republicans as with Democrats; indeed by end of his career (due to untimely death in office) Scoop was MORE popular with GOP than with Dems, due to his strong anti-Soviet stance.
Warren Magnuson on other hand was and still is very popular figure among WA Democrats; the state party's major annual fundraising event feature the "Maggie Awards".
Maggie's lack of support among Republicans, combined with his age and Reagan coattails, led to his ultimate defeat in 1980 by (then) rising Republican Slade Gorton. Who retained Maggie's old senate seat until 2000 election, when he in turn was defeated by Democrat Maria Cantwell, who is still in office and up for (very likely) re-election in 2024.
Into the low 40s Celsius all along the front line in Ukraine next week.
Lots of talk of historical wars being affected by freezing temperatures but I’d guess heatwaves could be a big problem too. Perhaps one advantage of trenches.
American (and most western) armoured vehicles have air conditioning. This isn’t just for comfort - but also humidity control and part of NBC capability.
Into the low 40s Celsius all along the front line in Ukraine next week.
Lots of talk of historical wars being affected by freezing temperatures but I’d guess heatwaves could be a big problem too. Perhaps one advantage of trenches.
In the Russia/Ukraine area the spring and autumn are the most challenging times for fighting a war.
Into the low 40s Celsius all along the front line in Ukraine next week.
Lots of talk of historical wars being affected by freezing temperatures but I’d guess heatwaves could be a big problem too. Perhaps one advantage of trenches.
American (and most western) armoured vehicles have air conditioning. This isn’t just for comfort - but also humidity control and part of NBC capability.
Some quite impressive temperature contrasts next week too. Look at this next Saturday:
10C in Salzburg, 40C in Bratislava. 3.5 hour drive on Google maps (or 2.5 hours from Linz where it’ll be 13C).
Into the low 40s Celsius all along the front line in Ukraine next week.
Lots of talk of historical wars being affected by freezing temperatures but I’d guess heatwaves could be a big problem too. Perhaps one advantage of trenches.
American (and most western) armoured vehicles have air conditioning. This isn’t just for comfort - but also humidity control and part of NBC capability.
Some quite impressive temperature contrasts next week too. Look at this next Saturday:
10C in Salzburg, 40C in Bratislava. 3.5 hour drive on Google maps (or 2.5 hours from Linz where it’ll be 13C).
This place. It’s a deeply provincial city in a seriously poor country. Albeit with a biggish university
The beauty of the women is like a highly fashionable bar in Shoreditch or Brooklyn or Le Marais
For some reason I’m reminded of the occasion some of us took a middle aged banker to the Sense bar in Sofia. By accident it was International Women’s Day, which they celebrate, in Bulgaria, in a big way.
He was reduced to gibbering. Jaw on the floor etc…
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
As with the GMP wrongful conviction, it will be ‘mistakes were made’. In the GMP case it seems to me utterly deliberate; the prison case is perhaps one of they just didn’t give a damn. Which is different, but equally bad.
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
One feature is the way that the omertà works. The Senior Management Team make sure that the people at the bottom believe
1) that if a senior person goes down, everyone below them will go down as well. 2) that any junior person who gives evidence against a senior will have their career fucked. Further, if they try and change careers, the Right People will make sure that the lack mark follows them.
In response to the new Government 'Online News Act' both Meta (Facebook and Instagram) and Google will no longer show content from or provide links to any sites which contain news content.
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
As with the GMP wrongful conviction, it will be ‘mistakes were made’. In the GMP case it seems to me utterly deliberate; the prison case is perhaps one of they just didn’t give a damn. Which is different, but equally bad.
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
It doesn't come from nowhere. The way in which tabloids dehumanise people is a factor. We see it also in the way we often talk about the political opposition on here too. It strips away empathy and allows ordinary people to do inhumane things.
This place. It’s a deeply provincial city in a seriously poor country. Albeit with a biggish university
The beauty of the women is like a highly fashionable bar in Shoreditch or Brooklyn or Le Marais
For some reason I’m reminded of the occasion some of us took a middle aged banker to the Sense bar in Sofia. By accident it was International Women’s Day, which they celebrate, in Bulgaria, in a big way.
He was reduced to gibbering. Jaw on the floor etc…
There must be some genetic explanation for the beauty of Eastern European women. Montenegro is also astonishing. Tho I would argue that Ukraine is probably Peak Slavic Beauty
They have a lot of pure Viking blood. Hence the cheekbones? And blondes? Yet they are much more striking than Scandi women. In a different league
Also you get quite a few dark haired but fair skinned women, equally striking. Persian, Armenian and Circassian bloodlines? Either way it is a bewitching alchemy
The men are not nearly as handsome as the women are lovely
Perhaps it is God’s way of apologizing to Ukraine for all the horrible history
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
It doesn't come from nowhere. The way in which tabloids dehumanise people is a factor. We see it also in the way we often talk about the political opposition on here too. It strips away empathy and allows ordinary people to do inhumane things.
It’s an institutional problem - the same shit has happened over the centuries, many times.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
Yep, and even with the latter it's not *just* about acting ability. Eg Hugh Grant was great as Jeremy Thorpe but you couldn't cast him as Golda Meir. Or rather you could - there's no law against it - but expect a backlash if you do and it'd be wholly merited imo.
As per my post to @Richard_Tyndall where do you stand on Michael Balogun playing a white Jewish Lehman brother?
That sounds ok and I'll take your word that it was. Hugh Grant as Golda Meir however - different story. I think I'd struggle with that. He could act it up a storm but still, no. Not for me.
Tropic Thunder is now apparently “problematic” due to Robert Downie Junior in black-face even though the point of him in black face is so over the top ridiculous to mock method acting and the idea that a white man can understand the reality of a black man in Vietnam and therefore is patently an anti-racism stance.
I think it's more accurate to say that somebody on the internet said it was problematic. Ben Stiller laughed it off, refused to apologise (that bit's important: never apologise) and after a few days the DISCOURSE WAS NOT UPSET and went off to bitching about something else. It's now only ever introduced by people making a point about woke.
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
It doesn't come from nowhere. The way in which tabloids dehumanise people is a factor. We see it also in the way we often talk about the political opposition on here too. It strips away empathy and allows ordinary people to do inhumane things.
Yes. But what a prison does is what the state does. The state allows tabloid newspapers and freedom of speech. But the state does not stand in amoral relation to cruelty and wickedness or it would not pass laws against it.
We might have some comprehension of why the state system may give Ian Huntley or Thomas Cashman a hard time, without agreeing with it. We are speaking here of a dead baby.
What happened here would be criminal negligence if done by some idiot teenage male partner.
Woakes is one of England’s most underrated players.
Only gets into the side by the end of the English summer. Does well. Plays badly overseas for half a series. Dropped until second half of English summer. Repeat.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
Yep, and even with the latter it's not *just* about acting ability. Eg Hugh Grant was great as Jeremy Thorpe but you couldn't cast him as Golda Meir. Or rather you could - there's no law against it - but expect a backlash if you do and it'd be wholly merited imo.
As per my post to @Richard_Tyndall where do you stand on Michael Balogun playing a white Jewish Lehman brother?
That sounds ok and I'll take your word that it was. Hugh Grant as Golda Meir however - different story. I think I'd struggle with that. He could act it up a storm but still, no. Not for me.
Tropic Thunder is now apparently “problematic” due to Robert Downie Junior in black-face even though the point of him in black face is so over the top ridiculous to mock method acting and the idea that a white man can understand the reality of a black man in Vietnam and therefore is patently an anti-racism stance.
I think it's more accurate to say that somebody on the internet said it was problematic. Ben Stiller laughed it off, refused to apologise (that bit's important: never apologise) and after a few days the DISCOURSE WAS NOT UPSET and went off to bitching about something else. It's now only ever introduced by people making a point about woke.
Plus, I believe, some actual black people said that Tropic Thunder did black face exactly right. And that those who had a problem with it didn’t understand why blackface is/was a problem.
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
"Only one prison officer, who didn’t even do anything wrong, said sorry to me directly."
That sounds 100% true. The guilty have no conscience. It's the innocent who have one.
See also that the SS had promised to capture the baby at birth. Subsequent events suggest the baby wasn't considered "Ideal Adoption Material". There should be an international-sized scandal about what the SS do in Britain, and secret family courts (don't speak to a journalist about what happened in one of them - they'll lock you up if you do) and the way that thousands of women are labelled unfit to breed... Don't expect the tabloids or the "quality" press in the country to say anything though - any more than they've been kicking up a fuss about the trafficking - oh, I mean "disappearance" - of unaccompanied child refugees in Brighton.
For FOUR YEARS the authorities seem to have been disciplinarily investigating the screw who received her call for medical help and ignored it. I wonder what details they're investigating?
Recommended: a film called "Traffic" made in 2014 and another called "Traffic 2" made in 2017.
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
As with the GMP wrongful conviction, it will be ‘mistakes were made’. In the GMP case it seems to me utterly deliberate; the prison case is perhaps one of they just didn’t give a damn. Which is different, but equally bad.
j
Lessons Will Be Learned*
*no actual lessons may or may not be learned.
Those exact words were used when trying to excuse the GMP wrongful conviction case. I don’t think they meant ‘don’t deliberately frame innocent people’ as the lesson.
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
It doesn't come from nowhere. The way in which tabloids dehumanise people is a factor. We see it also in the way we often talk about the political opposition on here too. It strips away empathy and allows ordinary people to do inhumane things.
It’s an institutional problem - the same shit has happened over the centuries, many times.
Jobsworthism. “I filled out all the forms”
Think of the stories around the Roman soldiers at Calvary. Parables about jobsworthism, mostly.
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
As with the GMP wrongful conviction, it will be ‘mistakes were made’. In the GMP case it seems to me utterly deliberate; the prison case is perhaps one of they just didn’t give a damn. Which is different, but equally bad.
j
Lessons Will Be Learned*
*no actual lessons may or may not be learned.
Those exact words were used when trying to excuse the GMP wrongful conviction case. I don’t think they meant ‘don’t deliberately frame innocent people’ as the lesson.
That’s code for nothing will change
It’s like a Masonic handshake in the NU10K. Anyone trying to do anything further will be labelled “vindictive” - that’s the party line.
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
As with the GMP wrongful conviction, it will be ‘mistakes were made’. In the GMP case it seems to me utterly deliberate; the prison case is perhaps one of they just didn’t give a damn. Which is different, but equally bad.
‘Lessons will be learned’, those responsible stay in post and it will just continue to happen.
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
It doesn't come from nowhere. The way in which tabloids dehumanise people is a factor. We see it also in the way we often talk about the political opposition on here too. It strips away empathy and allows ordinary people to do inhumane things.
It’s an institutional problem - the same shit has happened over the centuries, many times.
Jobsworthism. “I filled out all the forms”
Rape has happened a lot too.
Also before say 1850 it's not as if the state as an institution that employs millions of officials was anything like what it is today.
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
"Only one prison officer, who didn’t even do anything wrong, said sorry to me directly."
That sounds 100% true. The guilty have no conscience. It's the innocent who have one.
See also that the SS had promised to capture the baby at birth. Subsequent events suggest the baby wasn't considered "Ideal Adoption Material". There should be an international-sized scandal about what the SS do in Britain, and secret family courts (don't speak to a journalist about what happened in one of them - they'll lock you up if you do) and the way that thousands of women are labelled unfit to breed... Don't expect the tabloids or the "quality" press in the country to say anything though - any more than they've been kicking up a fuss about the trafficking - oh, I mean "disappearance" - of unaccompanied child refugees in Brighton.
For FOUR YEARS the authorities seem to have been disciplinarily investigating the screw who received her call for medical help and ignored it. I wonder what details they're investigating?
Recommended: a film called "Traffic" made in 2014 and another called "Traffic 2" made in 2017.
From an earlier post. Would you think that an unaccompanied minor immigrant would be better off
1) in a repurposed country hotel. 2) in the care of social services.
I once suggested to the then Home Sec. that the correct response to the smug “we are untouchable because we have destroyed the records” from some at Rotherham demanded this response - put those in charge on the sex offenders registers.
This place. It’s a deeply provincial city in a seriously poor country. Albeit with a biggish university
The beauty of the women is like a highly fashionable bar in Shoreditch or Brooklyn or Le Marais
The quality of women in Eastern Europe is simple exceptional.
Don’t you have a Bulgarian wife? Nicely done
Yes it is exceptional. Ukraine is maybe where it crosses from exceptional to ridiculous
I’m sitting here (honestly trying not to perv, like a sad old knapper) yet the last 6 women to come into the restaurant have been absolutely gorgeous. They also REALLY dress up. Hair perfect, nails perfect, everyone is slim, etc
To get the equivalent in the west you’d have to go to London, NYC or Paris, as I say
Yet this is a smallish provincial city with poor people and a university. The equivalent in the UK might be Norwich
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
As with the GMP wrongful conviction, it will be ‘mistakes were made’. In the GMP case it seems to me utterly deliberate; the prison case is perhaps one of they just didn’t give a damn. Which is different, but equally bad.
j
Lessons Will Be Learned*
*no actual lessons may or may not be learned.
Those exact words were used when trying to excuse the GMP wrongful conviction case. I don’t think they meant ‘don’t deliberately frame innocent people’ as the lesson.
That’s code for nothing will change
It’s like a Masonic handshake in the NU10K. Anyone trying to do anything further will be labelled “vindictive” - that’s the party line.
I laughed when I heard it on R4. It was so patently insincere.
They deliberately (IMO, on the reporting of the case) imprisoned - and kept imprisoned for nearly two decades - an innocent man.
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
As with the GMP wrongful conviction, it will be ‘mistakes were made’. In the GMP case it seems to me utterly deliberate; the prison case is perhaps one of they just didn’t give a damn. Which is different, but equally bad.
‘Lessons will be learned’, those responsible stay in post and it will just continue to happen.
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
As with the GMP wrongful conviction, it will be ‘mistakes were made’. In the GMP case it seems to me utterly deliberate; the prison case is perhaps one of they just didn’t give a damn. Which is different, but equally bad.
j
Lessons Will Be Learned*
*no actual lessons may or may not be learned.
Those exact words were used when trying to excuse the GMP wrongful conviction case. I don’t think they meant ‘don’t deliberately frame innocent people’ as the lesson.
That’s code for nothing will change
It’s like a Masonic handshake in the NU10K. Anyone trying to do anything further will be labelled “vindictive” - that’s the party line.
I laughed when I heard it on R4. It was so patently insincere.
They deliberately (IMO, on the reporting of the case) imprisoned - and kept imprisoned for nearly two decades - an innocent man.
But why not do that?
Letting him out was admission of a problem. To do so before 2 decades have passed risked promotions and better jobs not happening for those involved.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unW5w6JCEb8
(There are some in the UK who think well of him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Jackson_Society )
The issue is - I'm not convinced the bail was 'off' within the meaning of the act.
Lead less than 50.
IF the Dame, as I suspect, did NOT . . .
Burgum founded a successful software company in North Dakota, sold it to Microsoft, worked for that company for some years, and was first elected governor in 2016.
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/28/doug-burgum-presidential-candidate-qualifications/
But not (eg) Grant as Golda Meir. Or, to go into fiction, what about casting Sydney Poitier instead of Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch in Mocking Bird? I think I'd say no to that too. For the same reason - because of the role and the context of the role in the story.
https://www.arogundade.com/patrick-stewart-shakespeares-white-othello-from-arogundade-books.html
Lots of talk of historical wars being affected by freezing temperatures but I’d guess heatwaves could be a big problem too. Perhaps one advantage of trenches.
Thanks for indulging me and doing the calculations. I agree that +0.4% in a half year is impressive, and presumably their rate of installations is still increasing.
Good morning! Looks like #UFO whistleblower Bob Lazar was a pimp (helped operate a “high-tech whorehouse”). Convicted.
That’s out of this world!
https://twitter.com/RepRiggleman/status/1684922913651412992
While Magnuson lacked Jackson's foreign policy credentials and resultant international recognition, he was a major force on the domestic front, and (along with Jackson) for WA State industry AND labor unions esp. Boeing and related aerospace and defense.
Scoop Jackson never lost an election EXCEPT when he ran for President. In WA State he was just about as popular with Republicans as with Democrats; indeed by end of his career (due to untimely death in office) Scoop was MORE popular with GOP than with Dems, due to his strong anti-Soviet stance.
Warren Magnuson on other hand was and still is very popular figure among WA Democrats; the state party's major annual fundraising event feature the "Maggie Awards".
Maggie's lack of support among Republicans, combined with his age and Reagan coattails, led to his ultimate defeat in 1980 by (then) rising Republican Slade Gorton. Who retained Maggie's old senate seat until 2000 election, when he in turn was defeated by Democrat Maria Cantwell, who is still in office and up for (very likely) re-election in 2024.
Ridiculous.
https://twitter.com/GrifterHunter/status/1684939157997535232
Look out for the glossy magazine interview. All about her hurt and how being a woman has held her back.
10C in Salzburg, 40C in Bratislava. 3.5 hour drive on Google maps (or 2.5 hours from Linz where it’ll be 13C).
But whatever he is, he's screwed England.
And Broad Ieaves the field.
MSNBC: Trump, Trump, Trump
Fox: Hunter, Hunter, Hunter
Balanced news coverage.
We're really missing Moeen.
Not having a spinner will do that.
Gary Marlborough"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/64959413
The beauty of the women is like a highly fashionable bar in Shoreditch or Brooklyn or Le Marais
“All these useless and untouchable men/women/animals/vegetables/minerals”
That’s better
The problem is not affirmative action - it’s that the black lesbian narwhals are just as crap as the fat white men. The flip side of equality.
He was reduced to gibbering. Jaw on the floor etc…
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/28/serious-failings-contributed-to-babys-death-in-12-hour-lone-prison-birth
The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.
In the GMP case it seems to me utterly deliberate; the prison case is perhaps one of they just didn’t give a damn. Which is different, but equally bad.
1) that if a senior person goes down, everyone below them will go down as well.
2) that any junior person who gives evidence against a senior will have their career fucked. Further, if they try and change careers, the Right People will make sure that the lack mark follows them.
In response to the new Government 'Online News Act' both Meta (Facebook and Instagram) and Google will no longer show content from or provide links to any sites which contain news content.
Lessons Will Be Learned*
*no actual lessons may or may not be learned.
They have a lot of pure Viking blood. Hence the cheekbones? And blondes? Yet they are much more striking than Scandi women. In a different league
Also you get quite a few dark haired but fair skinned women, equally striking. Persian, Armenian and Circassian bloodlines? Either way it is a bewitching alchemy
The men are not nearly as handsome as the women are lovely
Perhaps it is God’s way of apologizing to Ukraine for all the horrible history
Jobsworthism. “I filled out all the forms”
We might have some comprehension of why the state system may give Ian Huntley or Thomas Cashman a hard time, without agreeing with it. We are speaking here of a dead baby.
What happened here would be criminal negligence if done by some idiot teenage male partner.
Does well.
Plays badly overseas for half a series.
Dropped until second half of English summer.
Repeat.
That sounds 100% true. The guilty have no conscience. It's the innocent who have one.
See also that the SS had promised to capture the baby at birth. Subsequent events suggest the baby wasn't considered "Ideal Adoption Material". There should be an international-sized scandal about what the SS do in Britain, and secret family courts (don't speak to a journalist about what happened in one of them - they'll lock you up if you do) and the way that thousands of women are labelled unfit to breed... Don't expect the tabloids or the "quality" press in the country to say anything though - any more than they've been kicking up a fuss about the trafficking - oh, I mean "disappearance" - of unaccompanied child refugees in Brighton.
For FOUR YEARS the authorities seem to have been disciplinarily investigating the screw who received her call for medical help and ignored it. I wonder what details they're investigating?
Recommended: a film called "Traffic" made in 2014 and another called "Traffic 2" made in 2017.
I don’t think they meant ‘don’t deliberately frame innocent people’ as the lesson.
https://www.itfc.co.uk/news/2023/july/28/town-v-werder-bremen-match-report/
I’d actually have settled for a 12 run lead at start of play - as, I guess, might have England.
It’s like a Masonic handshake in the NU10K. Anyone trying to do anything further will be labelled “vindictive” - that’s the party line.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12348293/BORIS-JOHNSON-Ive-foresuffered-Barbie-parable-destiny-humanity-rallying-cry-human-fecundity-driven-money-html.html
So don't forget it
It's just a silly phase I'm going through"
Also before say 1850 it's not as if the state as an institution that employs millions of officials was anything like what it is today.
1) in a repurposed country hotel.
2) in the care of social services.
I once suggested to the then Home Sec. that the correct response to the smug “we are untouchable because we have destroyed the records” from some at Rotherham demanded this response - put those in charge on the sex offenders registers.
Yes it is exceptional. Ukraine is maybe where it crosses from exceptional to ridiculous
I’m sitting here (honestly trying not to perv, like a sad old knapper) yet the last 6 women to come into the restaurant have been absolutely gorgeous. They also REALLY dress up. Hair perfect, nails perfect, everyone is slim, etc
To get the equivalent in the west you’d have to go to London, NYC or Paris, as I say
Yet this is a smallish provincial city with poor people and a university. The equivalent in the UK might be Norwich
It was so patently insincere.
They deliberately (IMO, on the reporting of the case) imprisoned - and kept imprisoned for nearly two decades - an innocent man.
Letting him out was admission of a problem. To do so before 2 decades have passed risked promotions and better jobs not happening for those involved.
Have you no compassion?
Juventus have been kicked out of this season's Europa Conference League by Uefa and fined for breaching Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules.
European football's governing body has also fined Chelsea for breaching FFP rules as a result of "submitting incomplete financial information".
Uefa says the matter relates to transactions which took place between 2012 and 2019.
Juventus have been fined £17.14m, while Chelsea have been fined £8.57m.