I've not followed the case very closely, but my impression is that the reason the doctors were forced to apologise is that management had the impression that they were bullying a junior member of staff (the apparently patronising "nice Lucy" could be an example). In principle it's of course a good thing that management pays attention to complaints of this kind, but it illustrates the fundamental point that substantive issues can't be ignored because of preoccupation with "correct" behaviour.
Perhaps they had that impression because they wanted to have that impression, because dealing with bullying was a process they were comfortable with, whereas dealing with dead babies wasn't?
Interesting interview with the BBC reporter who sat in the courtroom right through. There’s something from her going on the web, if it hasn’t already appeared.
NHS management seems utterly oblivious to The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010
They are far from alone. Whistleblowing rules are a complete joke most of the time for the rather obvious reason that you need them because organisations will want to punish people for doing it, and a piece of paper saying they won't does not eliminate the desire to punish, so a way will be found.
It’s really not difficult, but it requires a change of mindset from management.
Find an industry where it works - aviation, railways, nuclear power stations - and learn from them.
I’m sure there’s a load of consultants out there like @Cyclefree, who have worked in settings with no-blame culture and can advise how things need to change.
Most things which are hard are still not as hard as people think, when it comes to changing how people act - a few key people in the right place, commitment and drive to achieve it, and people will go with the flow of a good culture as much as they do with a bad one. I dare say I don't challenge enough of the worse aspects of my own workplace's culture for sake of a quiet life.
Yes, inertia is always the easiest route to take. A change of culture isn’t difficult, but it takes work, and there will be pushback against it, as there is with any change.
But if your industry kills people when mistakes are made, then it’s everyone’s job to make sure that slippery slope isn’t started down, and the people who need to change the most are the senior management and the most experienced staff. In a hospital, that’s the consultants and the top administrators.
As an example, in aviation a young co-pilot is encouraged to call out mistakes made by a senior captain, but most importantly the senior captain is told to listen to such feedback. This is known in the industry as Crew Resource Management, and came about as a result of senior captains screwing up and planes crashing, because other people who could see what was happening were frighted to speak up about it. It’s especially a problem with ex-military pilots, and with some Asian cultures where seniority is seen as important. Most Western airlines still had to work hard to change the culture. (See the KLM Teneriffe accident of 1977 for the case study).
There was also the Korea Airline crash in (I think) Guam where this was identified.
NHS management seems utterly oblivious to The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010
They are far from alone. Whistleblowing rules are a complete joke most of the time for the rather obvious reason that you need them because organisations will want to punish people for doing it, and a piece of paper saying they won't does not eliminate the desire to punish, so a way will be found.
It’s really not difficult, but it requires a change of mindset from management.
Find an industry where it works - aviation, railways, nuclear power stations - and learn from them.
I’m sure there’s a load of consultants out there like @Cyclefree, who have worked in settings with no-blame culture and can advise how things need to change.
Most things which are hard are still not as hard as people think, when it comes to changing how people act - a few key people in the right place, commitment and drive to achieve it, and people will go with the flow of a good culture as much as they do with a bad one. I dare say I don't challenge enough of the worse aspects of my own workplace's culture for sake of a quiet life.
Yes, inertia is always the easiest route to take. A change of culture isn’t difficult, but it takes work, and there will be pushback against it, as there is with any change.
But if your industry kills people when mistakes are made, then it’s everyone’s job to make sure that slippery slope isn’t started down, and the people who need to change the most are the senior management and the most experienced staff. In a hospital, that’s the consultants and the top administrators.
As an example, in aviation a young co-pilot is encouraged to call out mistakes made by a senior captain, but most importantly the senior captain is told to listen to such feedback. This is known in the industry as Crew Resource Management, and came about as a result of senior captains screwing up and planes crashing, because other people who could see what was happening were frighted to speak up about it. It’s especially a problem with ex-military pilots, and with some Asian cultures where seniority is seen as important. Most Western airlines still had to work hard to change the culture. (See the KLM Teneriffe accident of 1977 for the case study).
There was also the Korea Airline crash in (I think) Guam where this was identified.
Off topic, but I am idly wondering how much carbon the Canadian forest fires are burning. It has got to be a lot. I know that forests are renewable, but trees take decades to grow back.
I've not followed the case very closely, but my impression is that the reason the doctors were forced to apologise is that management had the impression that they were bullying a junior member of staff (the apparently patronising "nice Lucy" could be an example). In principle it's of course a good thing that management pays attention to complaints of this kind, but it illustrates the fundamental point that substantive issues can't be ignored because of preoccupation with "correct" behaviour.
Perhaps they had that impression because they wanted to have that impression, because dealing with bullying was a process they were comfortable with, whereas dealing with dead babies wasn't?
As if doing the one could blot out the other.
Or the scenario was so horrific that ‘it couldn’t happen here’!
Really? It takes a 5000 word header to understand what can be said in 50, with room over for a really good recipe for ceviche?
Less is more.
Bravo! Ishmael is back.
You’ve only just realised? His tell of going on about Bayes and statistics manifested early…
I've not been following PB too much lately. Political argument has been replaced by an unseemly dash for 'likes'. Like this thread it makes for very ugly reading.
The problem is that any dissenting opinions are now quickly hidden as you say by people chasing likes. I think @MrEd, @StuartDickson had some interesting stuff to say and yet we have to go through Leon's latest rant about aliens day after day. I know he's "left" but we all know he will be back.
I thought we were having an interesting discussion last night on Ukraine and I valued some of the more "dissenting" contributions but as usual they were accused of being stooges.
Over the years Leon has contributed more than most to the site.
Certainly in volume!
An occasional good post, but an awful lot of Instagram dinners, holiday snaps and whacko stuff from the rabbit hole.
Well in Leon’s absence, I think I’ve managed to find the most expensive beer in Ukraine. Sitting in the fine surroundings of the bar of the Intercontinental in Kiev, listening to the live pianist, 240 grivnas, that’s damn nearly a fiver a pint!
I am furious about some of the nasty and sexist comments on Cyclefree's post. Quite a few of the culprits will be banned
With your permission OGH can I also add:
Anybody who complains about the length of a Cyclefree header is an idiot. They're not long except compared to the average Tweet, and if they were shorter they would be much less informative.
Cyclefree is an expert in these areas, far more so than any journalist. PB is damn lucky to have her insight and we're all much the poorer for her being constantly bullied off below the line comments.
My post defending her was deleted.
I presume that's because I dropped the f-bomb, but it was in frustration at the same/similar people having a go at her yet again, which yanked my chain.
That is a shame, because if it is the post I was thinking about it was a damn good post with a lot of likes.
I've not followed the case very closely, but my impression is that the reason the doctors were forced to apologise is that management had the impression that they were bullying a junior member of staff (the apparently patronising "nice Lucy" could be an example). In principle it's of course a good thing that management pays attention to complaints of this kind, but it illustrates the fundamental point that substantive issues can't be ignored because of preoccupation with "correct" behaviour.
Perhaps they had that impression because they wanted to have that impression, because dealing with bullying was a process they were comfortable with, whereas dealing with dead babies wasn't?
As if doing the one could blot out the other.
It was motivated by the cya instinct that Kinabalu referred to. They thought it would diminish the likelihood of Letby taking them to a tribunal.
Meanwhile they ignored the evidence that baby deaths were ten times what you’d normally expect and that one nurse had been on duty for all of them. The sort of thing that shouldn’t actually require a £100k+ salary to notice.
As people commenting BTL are squeezing in their usual hobbyhorses (@Alanbrooke's linkage to Brexit was particularly epic, I thought ) may I take this opportunity to introduce you to the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU) at Oxford. Its UK Perinatal Mortality Surveillance detected the increased mortality rate caused by Lucy Letby and gave an objective foundation on which subjective suspicions could be developed.
Harold Macmillan was a fan of the Gilbert and Sullivan lyric "Quiet calm consideration will untangle every knot". I submit that it is structures like this that may provide the way forward. Management involves people and people are flawed. Graphs are much simpler.
Yes, and every death or near miss should go via the departmental Morbidity and Mortality meeting. I don't know what happened in these cases in Chester concerning M and M.
I am furious about some of the nasty and sexist comments on Cyclefree's post. Quite a few of the culprits will be banned
With your permission OGH can I also add:
Anybody who complains about the length of a Cyclefree header is an idiot. They're not long except compared to the average Tweet, and if they were shorter they would be much less informative.
Cyclefree is an expert in these areas, far more so than any journalist. PB is damn lucky to have her insight and we're all much the poorer for her being constantly bullied off below the line comments.
My post defending her was deleted.
I presume that's because I dropped the f-bomb, but it was in frustration at the same/similar people having a go at her yet again, which yanked my chain.
That is a shame, because if it is the post I was thinking about it was a damn good post with a lot of likes.
I didn't agree with a lot of it but it had no business being deleted.
NHS management seems utterly oblivious to The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010
They are far from alone. Whistleblowing rules are a complete joke most of the time for the rather obvious reason that you need them because organisations will want to punish people for doing it, and a piece of paper saying they won't does not eliminate the desire to punish, so a way will be found.
It’s really not difficult, but it requires a change of mindset from management.
Find an industry where it works - aviation, railways, nuclear power stations - and learn from them.
I’m sure there’s a load of consultants out there like @Cyclefree, who have worked in settings with no-blame culture and can advise how things need to change.
Most things which are hard are still not as hard as people think, when it comes to changing how people act - a few key people in the right place, commitment and drive to achieve it, and people will go with the flow of a good culture as much as they do with a bad one. I dare say I don't challenge enough of the worse aspects of my own workplace's culture for sake of a quiet life.
Yes, inertia is always the easiest route to take. A change of culture isn’t difficult, but it takes work, and there will be pushback against it, as there is with any change.
But if your industry kills people when mistakes are made, then it’s everyone’s job to make sure that slippery slope isn’t started down, and the people who need to change the most are the senior management and the most experienced staff. In a hospital, that’s the consultants and the top administrators.
As an example, in aviation a young co-pilot is encouraged to call out mistakes made by a senior captain, but most importantly the senior captain is told to listen to such feedback. This is known in the industry as Crew Resource Management, and came about as a result of senior captains screwing up and planes crashing, because other people who could see what was happening were frighted to speak up about it. It’s especially a problem with ex-military pilots, and with some Asian cultures where seniority is seen as important. Most Western airlines still had to work hard to change the culture. (See the KLM Teneriffe accident of 1977 for the case study).
There was also the Korea Airline crash in (I think) Guam where this was identified.
I was thinking the Staines crash of the BEA Trident, too. Edit: wasn't that bound up with internal politics both in the crash and after?
Yes I thought of that as well (I really liked BEA's red wings). I always visualised the Captain as a James Robertson Justice type.
Anyhoo the YouTube "TheFlightChannel" has many reconstructions of plane crashes. Not one I watch because you can't listen to it whilst working, but very useful for second-by-second plays revealing what went wrong.
I am furious about some of the nasty and sexist comments on Cyclefree's post. Quite a few of the culprits will be banned
Eh? A quick scan of the thread finds only one critic and that was a hackneyed and inaccurate rant about length. The rest have been grateful and/or supportive of Cyclefree.
Perhaps OGH sensibly doesn’t much bother reading below the line.
Or already deleted?
Miklosvar's supposedly offensive posts are still here while he has been cancelled. Seems a bit arse over tit to me, but lèse-majesté has been committed so..
NHS management seems utterly oblivious to The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010
They are far from alone. Whistleblowing rules are a complete joke most of the time for the rather obvious reason that you need them because organisations will want to punish people for doing it, and a piece of paper saying they won't does not eliminate the desire to punish, so a way will be found.
It’s really not difficult, but it requires a change of mindset from management.
Find an industry where it works - aviation, railways, nuclear power stations - and learn from them.
I’m sure there’s a load of consultants out there like @Cyclefree, who have worked in settings with no-blame culture and can advise how things need to change.
Most things which are hard are still not as hard as people think, when it comes to changing how people act - a few key people in the right place, commitment and drive to achieve it, and people will go with the flow of a good culture as much as they do with a bad one. I dare say I don't challenge enough of the worse aspects of my own workplace's culture for sake of a quiet life.
Yes, inertia is always the easiest route to take. A change of culture isn’t difficult, but it takes work, and there will be pushback against it, as there is with any change.
But if your industry kills people when mistakes are made, then it’s everyone’s job to make sure that slippery slope isn’t started down, and the people who need to change the most are the senior management and the most experienced staff. In a hospital, that’s the consultants and the top administrators.
As an example, in aviation a young co-pilot is encouraged to call out mistakes made by a senior captain, but most importantly the senior captain is told to listen to such feedback. This is known in the industry as Crew Resource Management, and came about as a result of senior captains screwing up and planes crashing, because other people who could see what was happening were frighted to speak up about it. It’s especially a problem with ex-military pilots, and with some Asian cultures where seniority is seen as important. Most Western airlines still had to work hard to change the culture. (See the KLM Teneriffe accident of 1977 for the case study).
There was also the Korea Airline crash in (I think) Guam where this was identified.
I was thinking the Staines crash of the BEA Trident, too. Edit: wasn't that bound up with internal politics both in the crash and after?
There was the Chinook (?) crash in Kintyre too, where as more evidence came to light, blame shifted. IIRC
Hmm. Struck by the multilayered, Swiss cheese slice holes lining up in a row (as Sandpit reminded us) 'faults' in those examples and the F-35 on the carrier - in the latter case, for instance, the government would indignantly deny blame, but they imposed the situation in which the assorted service and civilian roof rats and the jet jockey screwed up massively.
I am furious about some of the nasty and sexist comments on Cyclefree's post. Quite a few of the culprits will be banned
Eh? A quick scan of the thread finds only one critic and that was a hackneyed and inaccurate rant about length. The rest have been grateful and/or supportive of Cyclefree.
Perhaps OGH sensibly doesn’t much bother reading below the line.
Or already deleted?
Miklosvar's supposedly offensive posts are still here while he has been cancelled. Seems a bit arse over tit to me, but lèse-majesté has been committed so..
Nonsensical that Miklosvar's posts are up whilst others get deleted. Keep them all would be my opinion.
Interesting interview with the BBC reporter who sat in the courtroom right through. There’s something from her going on the web, if it hasn’t already appeared.
Heads up: GBNews talking about businesses that don't take cash.
Businesses should take both. Those that only take cash should be a huge red flag.
A lot of pubs in London now only do contactless or card. They seem to be doing just fine as people in general don't ever pay with cash anyway. Why should they be forced as a private business to take cash when their customers are not demanding it?
Really? It takes a 5000 word header to understand what can be said in 50, with room over for a really good recipe for ceviche?
Less is more.
Bravo! Ishmael is back.
You’ve only just realised? His tell of going on about Bayes and statistics manifested early…
I've not been following PB too much lately. Political argument has been replaced by an unseemly dash for 'likes'. Like this thread it makes for very ugly reading.
The problem is that any dissenting opinions are now quickly hidden as you say by people chasing likes. I think @MrEd, @StuartDickson had some interesting stuff to say and yet we have to go through Leon's latest rant about aliens day after day. I know he's "left" but we all know he will be back.
I thought we were having an interesting discussion last night on Ukraine and I valued some of the more "dissenting" contributions but as usual they were accused of being stooges.
Over the years Leon has contributed more than most to the site.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
BPC was a unionist. At the very least he wanted a union of the Crowns, his views on the union of the parliaments were…flexible. Also this was taken from his death mask so will be more accurate than his portraits, which were designed to flatter.
Really? It takes a 5000 word header to understand what can be said in 50, with room over for a really good recipe for ceviche?
Less is more.
Bravo! Ishmael is back.
You’ve only just realised? His tell of going on about Bayes and statistics manifested early…
I've not been following PB too much lately. Political argument has been replaced by an unseemly dash for 'likes'. Like this thread it makes for very ugly reading.
The problem is that any dissenting opinions are now quickly hidden as you say by people chasing likes. I think @MrEd, @StuartDickson had some interesting stuff to say and yet we have to go through Leon's latest rant about aliens day after day. I know he's "left" but we all know he will be back.
I thought we were having an interesting discussion last night on Ukraine and I valued some of the more "dissenting" contributions but as usual they were accused of being stooges.
Over the years Leon has contributed more than most to the site.
Certainly in volume!
An occasional good post, but an awful lot of Instagram dinners, holiday snaps and whacko stuff from the rabbit hole.
Well in Leon’s absence, I think I’ve managed to find the most expensive beer in Ukraine. Sitting in the fine surroundings of the bar of the Intercontinental in Kiev, listening to the live pianist, 240 grivnas, that’s damn nearly a fiver a pint!
Would get you a half at my local.
Mine too! (In the sandpit). I should do a version of the Big Mac Index, but for beer instead of cheeseburgers.
I think Ukraine is the cheapest place I’ve bought in pint in recent memory (around 50p), and Singapore the most expensive, (around £15).
Really? It takes a 5000 word header to understand what can be said in 50, with room over for a really good recipe for ceviche?
Less is more.
Bravo! Ishmael is back.
You’ve only just realised? His tell of going on about Bayes and statistics manifested early…
I've not been following PB too much lately. Political argument has been replaced by an unseemly dash for 'likes'. Like this thread it makes for very ugly reading.
The problem is that any dissenting opinions are now quickly hidden as you say by people chasing likes. I think @MrEd, @StuartDickson had some interesting stuff to say and yet we have to go through Leon's latest rant about aliens day after day. I know he's "left" but we all know he will be back.
I thought we were having an interesting discussion last night on Ukraine and I valued some of the more "dissenting" contributions but as usual they were accused of being stooges.
Over the years Leon has contributed more than most to the site.
Certainly in volume!
An occasional good post, but an awful lot of Instagram dinners, holiday snaps and whacko stuff from the rabbit hole.
Well in Leon’s absence, I think I’ve managed to find the most expensive beer in Ukraine. Sitting in the fine surroundings of the bar of the Intercontinental in Kiev, listening to the live pianist, 240 grivnas, that’s damn nearly a fiver a pint!
I am furious about some of the nasty and sexist comments on Cyclefree's post. Quite a few of the culprits will be banned
With your permission OGH can I also add:
Anybody who complains about the length of a Cyclefree header is an idiot. They're not long except compared to the average Tweet, and if they were shorter they would be much less informative.
Cyclefree is an expert in these areas, far more so than any journalist. PB is damn lucky to have her insight and we're all much the poorer for her being constantly bullied off below the line comments.
My post defending her was deleted.
I presume that's because I dropped the f-bomb, but it was in frustration at the same/similar people having a go at her yet again, which yanked my chain.
That is a shame, because if it is the post I was thinking about it was a damn good post with a lot of likes.
I didn't agree with a lot of it but it had no business being deleted.
Presumably collateral damage if nested with the posts on which the sentence of anathema has fallen. Happened to me at least once.
To be fair on Bonnie Prince Charlie, if that was based on his death mask, then it may not accurately reflect how handsome he was as a youth.
One of the joys of a long term relationship is that there is an eternal youth to it. Though it is 35 years ago, Mrs Foxy in my mind is still that 23 year old that I first dated in 1988.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
BPC was a unionist. At the very least he wanted a union of the Crowns, his views on the union of the parliaments were…flexible. Also this was taken from his death mask so will be more accurate than his portraits, which were designed to flatter.
My attempt at humour went right over your head there Doug
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
To be fair on Bonnie Prince Charlie, if that was based on his death mask, then it may not accurately reflect how handsome he was as a youth.
One of the joys of a long term relationship is that there is an eternal youth to it. Though it is 35 years ago, Mrs Foxy in my mind is still that 23 year old that I first dated in 1988.
Charles Edward Stuart, 'bonnie' or otherwise, was 67 when he fell off the perch. Various health problems. He was also a piss-artist as well, which wouldn't help.
NHS management seems utterly oblivious to The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010
They are far from alone. Whistleblowing rules are a complete joke most of the time for the rather obvious reason that you need them because organisations will want to punish people for doing it, and a piece of paper saying they won't does not eliminate the desire to punish, so a way will be found.
It’s really not difficult, but it requires a change of mindset from management.
Find an industry where it works - aviation, railways, nuclear power stations - and learn from them.
I’m sure there’s a load of consultants out there like @Cyclefree, who have worked in settings with no-blame culture and can advise how things need to change.
Most things which are hard are still not as hard as people think, when it comes to changing how people act - a few key people in the right place, commitment and drive to achieve it, and people will go with the flow of a good culture as much as they do with a bad one. I dare say I don't challenge enough of the worse aspects of my own workplace's culture for sake of a quiet life.
Yes, inertia is always the easiest route to take. A change of culture isn’t difficult, but it takes work, and there will be pushback against it, as there is with any change.
But if your industry kills people when mistakes are made, then it’s everyone’s job to make sure that slippery slope isn’t started down, and the people who need to change the most are the senior management and the most experienced staff. In a hospital, that’s the consultants and the top administrators.
As an example, in aviation a young co-pilot is encouraged to call out mistakes made by a senior captain, but most importantly the senior captain is told to listen to such feedback. This is known in the industry as Crew Resource Management, and came about as a result of senior captains screwing up and planes crashing, because other people who could see what was happening were frighted to speak up about it. It’s especially a problem with ex-military pilots, and with some Asian cultures where seniority is seen as important. Most Western airlines still had to work hard to change the culture. (See the KLM Teneriffe accident of 1977 for the case study).
There was also the Korea Airline crash in (I think) Guam where this was identified.
Really? It takes a 5000 word header to understand what can be said in 50, with room over for a really good recipe for ceviche?
Less is more.
Bravo! Ishmael is back.
You’ve only just realised? His tell of going on about Bayes and statistics manifested early…
I've not been following PB too much lately. Political argument has been replaced by an unseemly dash for 'likes'. Like this thread it makes for very ugly reading.
The problem is that any dissenting opinions are now quickly hidden as you say by people chasing likes. I think @MrEd, @StuartDickson had some interesting stuff to say and yet we have to go through Leon's latest rant about aliens day after day. I know he's "left" but we all know he will be back.
I thought we were having an interesting discussion last night on Ukraine and I valued some of the more "dissenting" contributions but as usual they were accused of being stooges.
Over the years Leon has contributed more than most to the site.
Certainly in volume!
An occasional good post, but an awful lot of Instagram dinners, holiday snaps and whacko stuff from the rabbit hole.
Well in Leon’s absence, I think I’ve managed to find the most expensive beer in Ukraine. Sitting in the fine surroundings of the bar of the Intercontinental in Kiev, listening to the live pianist, 240 grivnas, that’s damn nearly a fiver a pint!
Would get you a half at my local.
2 pints and change at Spoons
I'm now getting sucked into this cost of a pint stuff having never considered it before. Having responded a week or so ago to Leon's post about a £7 pint I commented that my pint of Shere Drop in my local in my very posh Surrey village is £5.30, only now to find in an even posher village I can get it for £4.60. That is one hell of a difference for the same pint in comparable pubs both within about 5 miles of the brewery.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
Republicanism in Scotland? Been there all along, for as long as I can remember - a strong minority.
But "B"PC is about the worst advertisement for the monarchy one can get, apart from KC1.
My morning after the day before fear is that Lucy Letby becomes the black swan to deliver the Conservatives another landslide.
Are Rishi and Suella really cynical enough to use the Letby case as reason enough to call for the ultimate sanction? Who wouldn't vote to see Lucy Letby's televised hanging by the neck until dead? I am not sure about Sunak, but I would bet my boots the thought has already entered Suella's head.
The death penalty would be the easy way out. She should spend her life thinking about her actions.
And if God forbid the CPS have got it wrong, they have killed the wrong person.
There's been a trial. She's not been found guilty merely on the say-so of the CPS.
What a facile comment.
As if there's never in the history of the criminal justice system been a miscarriage of justice?
An innocent person being imprisoned for years is awful but unavoidable sometimes. An innocent person being killed by the state before they can be acquitted down the line is unforgiveable.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
Republicanism in Scotland? Been there all along, for as long as I can remember - a strong minority.
But "B"PC is about the worst advertisement for the monarchy one can get, apart from KC1.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
Republicanism in Scotland? Been there all along, for as long as I can remember - a strong minority.
But "B"PC is about the worst advertisement for the monarchy one can get, apart from KC1.
King Joffrey was pretty awful.
Don't know that one. Was he a Stuart? He'd have to be pretty bad to outdo the worst of that lot.
I am furious about some of the nasty and sexist comments on Cyclefree's post. Quite a few of the culprits will be banned
Eh? A quick scan of the thread finds only one critic and that was a hackneyed and inaccurate rant about length. The rest have been grateful and/or supportive of Cyclefree.
Perhaps OGH sensibly doesn’t much bother reading below the line.
Or already deleted?
Miklosvar's supposedly offensive posts are still here while he has been cancelled. Seems a bit arse over tit to me, but lèse-majesté has been committed so..
He’s probably completing the sign up for his next incarnation as we speak.
I am furious about some of the nasty and sexist comments on Cyclefree's post. Quite a few of the culprits will be banned
Eh? A quick scan of the thread finds only one critic and that was a hackneyed and inaccurate rant about length. The rest have been grateful and/or supportive of Cyclefree.
Perhaps OGH sensibly doesn’t much bother reading below the line.
Or already deleted?
Miklosvar's supposedly offensive posts are still here while he has been cancelled. Seems a bit arse over tit to me, but lèse-majesté has been committed so..
He’s probably completing the sign up for his next incarnation as we speak.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
Republicanism in Scotland? Been there all along, for as long as I can remember - a strong minority.
But "B"PC is about the worst advertisement for the monarchy one can get, apart from KC1.
KC1 basically did everything wrong. He had stubbornness and weakness in precisely the wrong proportions, and consistently displayed them on the wrong things at the wrong time.
Essentially, the reason was executed - somewhat reluctantly by many at the time - was because that was felt to be the only way to politically resolve the situation.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
I believe the Stuart pretender is somewhere in Sweden.
I would also like to say that I am very grateful for the opportunity OGH has given me over the years to write and for all the constructive comments I receive and generally for the debate, which often stimulate other headers, rather than BTL posts.
So you only have yourselves to blame! 😀
And now I really must be off. There is post Storm Betty gardening to be done.
Thanks Cyclefree for this and all your excellent contributions to the Site. It's good to have you back.
This is one of your best headers and I see that it has generated a lot of thoughtful and intelligent discussion - PB at its best. I have only just seen it and would cherry pick the following points.
Revenge doesn't come into it. The woman Letby is plainly barking, but there will always be such people amongst us and we have to do what we can to ensure they are identified and stopped early.
Whoever said it was not just her fault was certainly correct, at the very least beyond the first three cases.
Examples of institutional cover-ups are legion. The earliest I am acquainted with is The Dreyfus Affair where the 'honour of the French Army' was considered sacrosant and more important than justice. We have howver numerous similar contemporary examples far closer to home, the Police and the GPO being just a couple of the more egregious ones.
There is a widespread belief that the desire to protect the institution's good name is a root cause of the problem. I am sick to death with this spurious justification. It is evident from all these examples and many more than the more compelling driving factor was self protection. It follows that we need to develop systems where the best way of protecting oneself is to act in an honest, open and professional way, rather than contrive or collude in a cover up.
I was much impressed by Jim Miller's post in which he cited three types of remedy common in the USA (Internal Affairs Units, support for whistleblowers, and Inspectors General). There is some hope in pursuing some if not all of these avenues.
Numerous posters pointed out correctly that rail and air disasters have become far less common over the years partly because a 'no blame' approach to investigations enabled the root causes to be understood and tackled. We could do with more of this in the our major institutions, and life generally, rather than the customary and vacuous 'lessons will be learned' mantra we usually get.
The first Mrs PtP and I were unfortunate enough to lose two children in infancy. You wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy, so you can imagine the sympathy we have for those who lost infants in this shocking case. I can feel no anger towards the perpetrator though, who is unquestionably guilty and equally unquestionably insane. I do however feel much anger and resentment towards those who were in a position to do something and did nothing, or worse, did the wrong thing. These did not have Letby's excuse, and the thought of them living comfortable lives rankles.
It would rankle less if there were more hope that the advocacy of people like Cyclefree and some of the more perceptive posters in this thread were likely to be be heard. We may be small voices, but who knows. Perhaps someone is listening.
I am furious about some of the nasty and sexist comments on Cyclefree's post. Quite a few of the culprits will be banned
Eh? A quick scan of the thread finds only one critic and that was a hackneyed and inaccurate rant about length. The rest have been grateful and/or supportive of Cyclefree.
Perhaps OGH sensibly doesn’t much bother reading below the line.
Or already deleted?
Miklosvar's supposedly offensive posts are still here while he has been cancelled. Seems a bit arse over tit to me, but lèse-majesté has been committed so..
He’s probably completing the sign up for his next incarnation as we speak.
He’s not cancelled merely inconvenienced.
Does anyone ever get a permaban here ?
isam which is a shame, I didn't agree with him on a lot of things but he provided a rather unique viewpoint which is missed now.
Why are the BBC still banging on about Parkinson on their website?
Parkinson has dropped off the BBC news page, at least with the options I've configured, perhaps your settings are different
Halfway down the main bbc.co.uk landing page
OK, well, there does not seem to be anything new there. I always go straight to news.bbc.co.uk which redirects to bbc.co.uk/news (usually via a bookmark).
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
Republicanism in Scotland? Been there all along, for as long as I can remember - a strong minority.
But "B"PC is about the worst advertisement for the monarchy one can get, apart from KC1.
KC1 basically did everything wrong. He had stubbornness and weakness in precisely the wrong proportions, and consistently displayed them on the wrong things at the wrong time.
Essentially, the reason was executed - somewhat reluctantly by many at the time - was because that was felt to be the only way to politically resolve the situation.
He ruled two kingdoms and managed to get both to rebel at almost the same time, and then get them to fight each other ...
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
I believe the Stuart pretender is somewhere in Sweden.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
I believe the Stuart pretender is somewhere in Sweden.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
Republicanism in Scotland? Been there all along, for as long as I can remember - a strong minority.
But "B"PC is about the worst advertisement for the monarchy one can get, apart from KC1.
King Joffrey was pretty awful.
Don't know that one. Was he a Stuart? He'd have to be pretty bad to outdo the worst of that lot.
Allegedly he was a Baratheon but according to a multi-part documentary I am following there may be some doubt about that.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
I believe the Stuart pretender is somewhere in Sweden.
State Sixth form accused of wokeness has got 43 kids into Oxbridge.
Is not calling Sixth Form tutors Sir or Miss what passes for woke these days?
I dunno, it seemed to generate a brief spasm of rage among the anti woke when it was first reported. I've never really got the Sir and Miss thing anyway, when I was at school in Scotland we always called teachers by their names, eg Mrs Smith etc, which seems a bit more normal. I totally get the school's thinking on it anyway, and it doesn't seem to have done them any harm.
Have just completed 12 days continuously working (kerching) so was too tired to read or post last night or wake up this morning.
On topic - this is a great example why HR needs to have policies and processes. In any organisation you will get individuals who are jealous of others and make spurious complaints. You will get people who are horrified by what they see but don't feel empowered to act. You will get managers who just want the problem to go away. And occasionally you get a monster.
Its easy for people to dismiss HR teams and policies, but they are there for the protection of all. I've used HR policy to manage a problematic team member. To defend myself and my team against a mendacious and incompetent boss. And to ensure that I took the business to the cleaners when new boss decided to bring his own people in and we needed to go.
I once worked for a monster. Not a baby-killer, but someone whose business and interpersonal practices were increasingly horrendous. The initial reaction is denial, then horror, then fear. Even when other colleagues with the same boss come to the same conclusion there is no sanctuary, if anything it was worse. What do we do about this person? About their allies? And who can we trust to raise our concerns? We did have one very senior manager utterly dismissive of any complaints - the business would look Bad (to say nothing of the people who hired the monster) if the complaints were true.
In the end, a robust HR policy did the job. A trip wire was tripped, the monster was suspended, a formal investigation launched. And that was the end of them. The HR policies and processes did their job. For the protection of the organisation and its people.
HR is a bit like unions - you need them (or something like them) to prevent exploitation or ensure some very reasonable processes are followed, but the image of them is dominated by the very worst examples of self important interfering busy bodies with irrelevant political (internal or external) agendas and box ticking irrelevance.
It's a shame because done right it's very necessary.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
On that basis, I was reflecting on who might have been the most recent monarch of England who could be considered mostly English.
I keep coming back to Queen Anne, whose mother was English although on her father's side her grandmother was French and her father was Scottish.
If we discount her (and presumably also her sister) then I think it would have to be Elizabeth I.
Of course, most English monarchs from 1066 to certainly 1399 were hardly 'English' in that sense...
Have just completed 12 days continuously working (kerching) so was too tired to read or post last night or wake up this morning.
On topic - this is a great example why HR needs to have policies and processes. In any organisation you will get individuals who are jealous of others and make spurious complaints. You will get people who are horrified by what they see but don't feel empowered to act. You will get managers who just want the problem to go away. And occasionally you get a monster.
Its easy for people to dismiss HR teams and policies, but they are there for the protection of all. I've used HR policy to manage a problematic team member. To defend myself and my team against a mendacious and incompetent boss. And to ensure that I took the business to the cleaners when new boss decided to bring his own people in and we needed to go.
I once worked for a monster. Not a baby-killer, but someone whose business and interpersonal practices were increasingly horrendous. The initial reaction is denial, then horror, then fear. Even when other colleagues with the same boss come to the same conclusion there is no sanctuary, if anything it was worse. What do we do about this person? About their allies? And who can we trust to raise our concerns? We did have one very senior manager utterly dismissive of any complaints - the business would look Bad (to say nothing of the people who hired the monster) if the complaints were true.
In the end, a robust HR policy did the job. A trip wire was tripped, the monster was suspended, a formal investigation launched. And that was the end of them. The HR policies and processes did their job. For the protection of the organisation and its people.
HR is a bit like unions - you need them (or something like them) to prevent exploitation or ensure some very reasonable processes are followed, but the image of them is dominated by the very worst examples of self important interfering busy bodies with irrelevant political (internal or external) agendas and box ticking irrelevance.
It's a shame because done right it's very necessary.
I once worked in a school which didn't have HR processes. Or bother with them.
The politest thing I could say about its management structure was that the people involved were a serious risk to everyone around them including the children.
I can't say the rudest thing I'd like to, but suffice to say it sounds a bit like the second word of this sentence...
State Sixth form accused of wokeness has got 43 kids into Oxbridge.
Is not calling Sixth Form tutors Sir or Miss what passes for woke these days?
I dunno, it seemed to generate a brief spasm of rage among the anti woke when it was first reported. I've never really got the Sir and Miss thing anyway, when I was at school in Scotland we always called teachers by their names, eg Mrs Smith etc, which seems a bit more normal. I totally get the school's thinking on it anyway, and it doesn't seem to have done them any harm.
In which case my school was ultra woke in the Eighties.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
Republicanism in Scotland? Been there all along, for as long as I can remember - a strong minority.
But "B"PC is about the worst advertisement for the monarchy one can get, apart from KC1.
KC1 basically did everything wrong. He had stubbornness and weakness in precisely the wrong proportions, and consistently displayed them on the wrong things at the wrong time.
Essentially, the reason was executed - somewhat reluctantly by many at the time - was because that was felt to be the only way to politically resolve the situation.
Very true - simplistic summaries of the period make it seem like the war began to get rid of the monarchy, but that's not even close to it. Even with his refusal to bend when in a position of weakness most didn't want to.
Have just completed 12 days continuously working (kerching) so was too tired to read or post last night or wake up this morning.
On topic - this is a great example why HR needs to have policies and processes. In any organisation you will get individuals who are jealous of others and make spurious complaints. You will get people who are horrified by what they see but don't feel empowered to act. You will get managers who just want the problem to go away. And occasionally you get a monster.
Its easy for people to dismiss HR teams and policies, but they are there for the protection of all. I've used HR policy to manage a problematic team member. To defend myself and my team against a mendacious and incompetent boss. And to ensure that I took the business to the cleaners when new boss decided to bring his own people in and we needed to go.
I once worked for a monster. Not a baby-killer, but someone whose business and interpersonal practices were increasingly horrendous. The initial reaction is denial, then horror, then fear. Even when other colleagues with the same boss come to the same conclusion there is no sanctuary, if anything it was worse. What do we do about this person? About their allies? And who can we trust to raise our concerns? We did have one very senior manager utterly dismissive of any complaints - the business would look Bad (to say nothing of the people who hired the monster) if the complaints were true.
In the end, a robust HR policy did the job. A trip wire was tripped, the monster was suspended, a formal investigation launched. And that was the end of them. The HR policies and processes did their job. For the protection of the organisation and its people.
HR is a bit like unions - you need them (or something like them) to prevent exploitation or ensure some very reasonable processes are followed, but the image of them is dominated by the very worst examples of self important interfering busy bodies with irrelevant political (internal or external) agendas and box ticking irrelevance.
It's a shame because done right it's very necessary.
I've just been through an academic year with a Finance person filling in for the vacant HR post. Believe me. You notice the difference.
Makes for very uncomfortable reading, I think there’s some dust in my eye.
I read that article: in fact I've just re-read it. I was impressed but also disturbed: not just by the subject (which you'd expect), but by the journalism (which you wouldn't). The article is in narrative format, detailing the evolution of the reporter's view as the trial progressed. It details moments and incidents and is impressionistic. But I think it fell short, at least of what I wanted
Journalism is the practice of people talking to others, selecting and discarding people and events into a story related by words. I can't help thinking it's not enough these days. Where were the graphs? Where were the 2x2 tables? Where were the barcharts, the maps, the choropleths? Where was the visualisation comparing Letby's attendance with increased mortality? If she was an outlier, where was the graph on which she outlied?
You can plot Harold Shipman on a map, or more specifically his deaths. There are clusters by his house and by a local pub, which supports the narrative that he liked to kill his victims before he clocked off for the day. A good dot map tells you that in less than a second. I believe the BBC has a data vis unit. I'd like to see what they could produce for Lucy Letby.
State Sixth form accused of wokeness has got 43 kids into Oxbridge.
Is not calling Sixth Form tutors Sir or Miss what passes for woke these days?
I dunno, it seemed to generate a brief spasm of rage among the anti woke when it was first reported. I've never really got the Sir and Miss thing anyway, when I was at school in Scotland we always called teachers by their names, eg Mrs Smith etc, which seems a bit more normal. I totally get the school's thinking on it anyway, and it doesn't seem to have done them any harm.
Never got this either. For a start. How do you distinguish which teacher you are referring to if you don't?
Have just completed 12 days continuously working (kerching) so was too tired to read or post last night or wake up this morning.
On topic - this is a great example why HR needs to have policies and processes. In any organisation you will get individuals who are jealous of others and make spurious complaints. You will get people who are horrified by what they see but don't feel empowered to act. You will get managers who just want the problem to go away. And occasionally you get a monster.
Its easy for people to dismiss HR teams and policies, but they are there for the protection of all. I've used HR policy to manage a problematic team member. To defend myself and my team against a mendacious and incompetent boss. And to ensure that I took the business to the cleaners when new boss decided to bring his own people in and we needed to go.
I once worked for a monster. Not a baby-killer, but someone whose business and interpersonal practices were increasingly horrendous. The initial reaction is denial, then horror, then fear. Even when other colleagues with the same boss come to the same conclusion there is no sanctuary, if anything it was worse. What do we do about this person? About their allies? And who can we trust to raise our concerns? We did have one very senior manager utterly dismissive of any complaints - the business would look Bad (to say nothing of the people who hired the monster) if the complaints were true.
In the end, a robust HR policy did the job. A trip wire was tripped, the monster was suspended, a formal investigation launched. And that was the end of them. The HR policies and processes did their job. For the protection of the organisation and its people.
HR is a bit like unions - you need them (or something like them) to prevent exploitation or ensure some very reasonable processes are followed, but the image of them is dominated by the very worst examples of self important interfering busy bodies with irrelevant political (internal or external) agendas and box ticking irrelevance.
It's a shame because done right it's very necessary.
I once worked in a school which didn't have HR processes. Or bother with them.
The politest thing I could say about its management structure was that the people involved were a serious risk to everyone around them including the children.
I can't say the rudest thing I'd like to, but suffice to say it sounds a bit like the second word of this sentence...
It's the same with a lot of things in life - a simple good idea gets picked up and carried to extremes until it becomes a whole light industry, beneficial mainly if not wholly to those who are employed in it.
Health and Safety is a classic. Long ago I lost an uncle to a building site accident. He was struck on the head by an oxygen cylinder. No hard hats in those days. Now you are not allowed on a site without one and this is a very good thing, but the Elf 'n Safe Tea industry has grown to the point where the small local fountain in my local park has a large yellow sign stating 'Caution; slippery when wet'.
Somewhere there is an employee thinking of these things and putting them into practice, at our expense.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
On that basis, I was reflecting on who might have been the most recent monarch of England who could be considered mostly English.
I keep coming back to Queen Anne, whose mother was English although on her father's side her grandmother was French and her father was Scottish.
If we discount her (and presumably also her sister) then I think it would have to be Elizabeth I.
Of course, most English monarchs from 1066 to certainly 1399 were hardly 'English' in that sense...
I think the next two will have been the most ‘English’ monarchs since the Conquest. Especially George - you don’t get more middle - England than the Middletons.
State Sixth form accused of wokeness has got 43 kids into Oxbridge.
Is not calling Sixth Form tutors Sir or Miss what passes for woke these days?
I dunno, it seemed to generate a brief spasm of rage among the anti woke when it was first reported. I've never really got the Sir and Miss thing anyway, when I was at school in Scotland we always called teachers by their names, eg Mrs Smith etc, which seems a bit more normal. I totally get the school's thinking on it anyway, and it doesn't seem to have done them any harm.
Never got this either. For a start. How do you distinguish which teacher you are referring to if you don't?
We used "Sir" or "Miss" when talking directly to and addressing the teacher, ie instead of using a first name or full name when speaking to them.
We used surnames, eg Mrs Smith, when speaking about them third party.
State Sixth form accused of wokeness has got 43 kids into Oxbridge.
Is not calling Sixth Form tutors Sir or Miss what passes for woke these days?
I dunno, it seemed to generate a brief spasm of rage among the anti woke when it was first reported. I've never really got the Sir and Miss thing anyway, when I was at school in Scotland we always called teachers by their names, eg Mrs Smith etc, which seems a bit more normal. I totally get the school's thinking on it anyway, and it doesn't seem to have done them any harm.
Never got this either. For a start. How do you distinguish which teacher you are referring to if you don't?
We used "Sir" or "Miss" when talking directly to and addressing the teacher, ie instead of using a first name or full name when speaking to them.
We used surnames, eg Mrs Smith, when speaking about them third party.
Indeed. We didn't use Sir or Miss in Sixth Form though. What's so radical about that?
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
On that basis, I was reflecting on who might have been the most recent monarch of England who could be considered mostly English.
I keep coming back to Queen Anne, whose mother was English although on her father's side her grandmother was French and her father was Scottish.
If we discount her (and presumably also her sister) then I think it would have to be Elizabeth I.
Of course, most English monarchs from 1066 to certainly 1399 were hardly 'English' in that sense...
Have just completed 12 days continuously working (kerching) so was too tired to read or post last night or wake up this morning.
On topic - this is a great example why HR needs to have policies and processes. In any organisation you will get individuals who are jealous of others and make spurious complaints. You will get people who are horrified by what they see but don't feel empowered to act. You will get managers who just want the problem to go away. And occasionally you get a monster.
Its easy for people to dismiss HR teams and policies, but they are there for the protection of all. I've used HR policy to manage a problematic team member. To defend myself and my team against a mendacious and incompetent boss. And to ensure that I took the business to the cleaners when new boss decided to bring his own people in and we needed to go.
I once worked for a monster. Not a baby-killer, but someone whose business and interpersonal practices were increasingly horrendous. The initial reaction is denial, then horror, then fear. Even when other colleagues with the same boss come to the same conclusion there is no sanctuary, if anything it was worse. What do we do about this person? About their allies? And who can we trust to raise our concerns? We did have one very senior manager utterly dismissive of any complaints - the business would look Bad (to say nothing of the people who hired the monster) if the complaints were true.
In the end, a robust HR policy did the job. A trip wire was tripped, the monster was suspended, a formal investigation launched. And that was the end of them. The HR policies and processes did their job. For the protection of the organisation and its people.
HR is a bit like unions - you need them (or something like them) to prevent exploitation or ensure some very reasonable processes are followed, but the image of them is dominated by the very worst examples of self important interfering busy bodies with irrelevant political (internal or external) agendas and box ticking irrelevance.
It's a shame because done right it's very necessary.
I once worked in a school which didn't have HR processes. Or bother with them.
The politest thing I could say about its management structure was that the people involved were a serious risk to everyone around them including the children.
I can't say the rudest thing I'd like to, but suffice to say it sounds a bit like the second word of this sentence...
It's the same with a lot of things in life - a simple good idea gets picked up and carried to extremes until it becomes a whole light industry, beneficial mainly if not wholly to those who are employed in it.
Health and Safety is a classic. Long ago I lost an uncle to a building site accident. He was struck on the head by an oxygen cylinder. No hard hats in those days. Now you are not allowed on a site without one and this is a very good thing, but the Elf 'n Safe Tea industry has grown to the point where the small local fountain in my local park has a large yellow sign stating 'Caution; slippery when wet'.
Somewhere there is an employee thinking of these things and putting them into practice, at our expense.
The problem is that the law is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. On the one hand there is the endless Littlejonesque moaning about “‘elf and safety” bureaucracy but then as soon as someone does get hurt the same suspects want people strung up for..erm…H&S failures.
Note - I never remember how to spell bureaucracy to the point where my attempts are so bad spellcheck doesn’t even know what I’m trying to do.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
On that basis, I was reflecting on who might have been the most recent monarch of England who could be considered mostly English.
I keep coming back to Queen Anne, whose mother was English although on her father's side her grandmother was French and her father was Scottish.
If we discount her (and presumably also her sister) then I think it would have to be Elizabeth I.
Of course, most English monarchs from 1066 to certainly 1399 were hardly 'English' in that sense...
Weren't the Tudors Welsh? Tudors of Penmynydd.
Yes. I’ve just written part of my dissertation about reinterpreting the lives of the saints in Reformation England. The Protestant counter-hagiographers were big on downplaying the differences between the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons. The Gregorian mission of St Augustine of Canterbury was not necessary as Britain had a native (read Welsh) church that had no need for such papist intervention. Early 17th century exiled Catholic polemicists took the opposite view.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
On that basis, I was reflecting on who might have been the most recent monarch of England who could be considered mostly English.
I keep coming back to Queen Anne, whose mother was English although on her father's side her grandmother was French and her father was Scottish.
If we discount her (and presumably also her sister) then I think it would have to be Elizabeth I.
Of course, most English monarchs from 1066 to certainly 1399 were hardly 'English' in that sense...
Weren't the Tudors Welsh? Tudors of Penmynydd.
Owain ap Maredudd was Welsh.
His wife (if they were married) was not. She was French (with a strong dash of German).
Henry VII was their grandson, and his mother could reasonably be called English (any French ancestry she had on either side was distant, despite the 'Beaufort' name). He may have spoken Welsh, but it would be stretching it to call him Welsh.
His wife had one Burgundian grandparent but otherwise her ancestry going back three generations on each side was emphatically English.
That would make Henry VIII as near as dammit English.
His eldest daughter's mother was Spanish, but his two next wives were both English.
So, to conclude this interesting and utterly pointless exercise in xenophobic stereotyping, the Tudors may have been given a Welsh name by later antiquarians (note, they never referred to themselves as the Tudors) but they were English.
You could even make a credible case they are the nearest thing to a fully English dynasty to occupy the throne of England since the death of Edmund Ironside in 1016.
Have just completed 12 days continuously working (kerching) so was too tired to read or post last night or wake up this morning.
On topic - this is a great example why HR needs to have policies and processes. In any organisation you will get individuals who are jealous of others and make spurious complaints. You will get people who are horrified by what they see but don't feel empowered to act. You will get managers who just want the problem to go away. And occasionally you get a monster.
Its easy for people to dismiss HR teams and policies, but they are there for the protection of all. I've used HR policy to manage a problematic team member. To defend myself and my team against a mendacious and incompetent boss. And to ensure that I took the business to the cleaners when new boss decided to bring his own people in and we needed to go.
I once worked for a monster. Not a baby-killer, but someone whose business and interpersonal practices were increasingly horrendous. The initial reaction is denial, then horror, then fear. Even when other colleagues with the same boss come to the same conclusion there is no sanctuary, if anything it was worse. What do we do about this person? About their allies? And who can we trust to raise our concerns? We did have one very senior manager utterly dismissive of any complaints - the business would look Bad (to say nothing of the people who hired the monster) if the complaints were true.
In the end, a robust HR policy did the job. A trip wire was tripped, the monster was suspended, a formal investigation launched. And that was the end of them. The HR policies and processes did their job. For the protection of the organisation and its people.
HR is a bit like unions - you need them (or something like them) to prevent exploitation or ensure some very reasonable processes are followed, but the image of them is dominated by the very worst examples of self important interfering busy bodies with irrelevant political (internal or external) agendas and box ticking irrelevance.
It's a shame because done right it's very necessary.
I once worked in a school which didn't have HR processes. Or bother with them.
The politest thing I could say about its management structure was that the people involved were a serious risk to everyone around them including the children.
I can't say the rudest thing I'd like to, but suffice to say it sounds a bit like the second word of this sentence...
It's the same with a lot of things in life - a simple good idea gets picked up and carried to extremes until it becomes a whole light industry, beneficial mainly if not wholly to those who are employed in it.
Health and Safety is a classic. Long ago I lost an uncle to a building site accident. He was struck on the head by an oxygen cylinder. No hard hats in those days. Now you are not allowed on a site without one and this is a very good thing, but the Elf 'n Safe Tea industry has grown to the point where the small local fountain in my local park has a large yellow sign stating 'Caution; slippery when wet'.
Somewhere there is an employee thinking of these things and putting them into practice, at our expense.
In fairness, this example would primarily be due to the rise in civic litigiousness rather than a desire to maintain Health and Safety employment.
Makes for very uncomfortable reading, I think there’s some dust in my eye.
I read that article: in fact I've just re-read it. I was impressed but also disturbed: not just by the subject (which you'd expect), but by the journalism (which you wouldn't). The article is in narrative format, detailing the evolution of the reporter's view as the trial progressed. It details moments and incidents and is impressionistic. But I think it fell short, at least of what I wanted
Journalism is the practice of people talking to others, selecting and discarding people and events into a story related by words. I can't help thinking it's not enough these days. Where were the graphs? Where were the 2x2 tables? Where were the barcharts, the maps, the choropleths? Where was the visualisation comparing Letby's attendance with increased mortality? If she was an outlier, where was the graph on which she outlied?
You can plot Harold Shipman on a map, or more specifically his deaths. There are clusters by his house and by a local pub, which supports the narrative that he liked to kill his victims before he clocked off for the day. A good dot map tells you that in less than a second. I believe the BBC has a data vis unit. I'd like to see what they could produce for Lucy Letby.
"A good dot map": as pioneered by the, erm, medical profession in the nineteenth century ... and in a discussion of data journalism by the Graun ...
Have just completed 12 days continuously working (kerching) so was too tired to read or post last night or wake up this morning.
On topic - this is a great example why HR needs to have policies and processes. In any organisation you will get individuals who are jealous of others and make spurious complaints. You will get people who are horrified by what they see but don't feel empowered to act. You will get managers who just want the problem to go away. And occasionally you get a monster.
Its easy for people to dismiss HR teams and policies, but they are there for the protection of all. I've used HR policy to manage a problematic team member. To defend myself and my team against a mendacious and incompetent boss. And to ensure that I took the business to the cleaners when new boss decided to bring his own people in and we needed to go.
I once worked for a monster. Not a baby-killer, but someone whose business and interpersonal practices were increasingly horrendous. The initial reaction is denial, then horror, then fear. Even when other colleagues with the same boss come to the same conclusion there is no sanctuary, if anything it was worse. What do we do about this person? About their allies? And who can we trust to raise our concerns? We did have one very senior manager utterly dismissive of any complaints - the business would look Bad (to say nothing of the people who hired the monster) if the complaints were true.
In the end, a robust HR policy did the job. A trip wire was tripped, the monster was suspended, a formal investigation launched. And that was the end of them. The HR policies and processes did their job. For the protection of the organisation and its people.
HR is a bit like unions - you need them (or something like them) to prevent exploitation or ensure some very reasonable processes are followed, but the image of them is dominated by the very worst examples of self important interfering busy bodies with irrelevant political (internal or external) agendas and box ticking irrelevance.
It's a shame because done right it's very necessary.
I once worked in a school which didn't have HR processes. Or bother with them.
The politest thing I could say about its management structure was that the people involved were a serious risk to everyone around them including the children.
I can't say the rudest thing I'd like to, but suffice to say it sounds a bit like the second word of this sentence...
It's the same with a lot of things in life - a simple good idea gets picked up and carried to extremes until it becomes a whole light industry, beneficial mainly if not wholly to those who are employed in it.
Health and Safety is a classic. Long ago I lost an uncle to a building site accident. He was struck on the head by an oxygen cylinder. No hard hats in those days. Now you are not allowed on a site without one and this is a very good thing, but the Elf 'n Safe Tea industry has grown to the point where the small local fountain in my local park has a large yellow sign stating 'Caution; slippery when wet'.
Somewhere there is an employee thinking of these things and putting them into practice, at our expense.
The problem is that the law is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. On the one hand there is the endless Littlejonesque moaning about “‘elf and safety” bureaucracy but then as soon as someone does get hurt the same suspects want people strung up for..erm…H&S failures.
Note - I never remember how to spell bureaucracy to the point where my attempts are so bad spellcheck doesn’t even know what I’m trying to do.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
On that basis, I was reflecting on who might have been the most recent monarch of England who could be considered mostly English.
I keep coming back to Queen Anne, whose mother was English although on her father's side her grandmother was French and her father was Scottish.
If we discount her (and presumably also her sister) then I think it would have to be Elizabeth I.
Of course, most English monarchs from 1066 to certainly 1399 were hardly 'English' in that sense...
Weren't the Tudors Welsh? Tudors of Penmynydd.
Owain ap Maredudd was Welsh.
His wife (if they were married) was not. She was French (with a strong dash of German).
Henry VII was their grandson, and his mother could reasonably be called English (any French ancestry she had on either side was distant, despite the 'Beaufort' name). He may have spoken Welsh, but it would be stretching it to call him Welsh.
His wife had one Burgundian grandparent but otherwise her ancestry going back three generations on each side was emphatically English.
That would make Henry VIII as near as dammit English.
His eldest daughter's mother was Spanish, but his two next wives were both English.
So, to conclude this interesting and utterly pointless exercise in xenophobic stereotyping, the Tudors may have been given a Welsh name by later antiquarians (note, they never referred to themselves as the Tudors) but they were English.
You could even make a credible case they are the nearest thing to a fully English dynasty to occupy the throne of England since the death of Edmund Ironside in 1016.
For all my issues with the series, this episode of “You’re dead to me” gives a good and lighthearted background to the Tudors.
I would also like to say that I am very grateful for the opportunity OGH has given me over the years to write and for all the constructive comments I receive and generally for the debate, which often stimulate other headers, rather than BTL posts.
So you only have yourselves to blame! 😀
And now I really must be off. There is post Storm Betty gardening to be done.
Thanks Cyclefree for this and all your excellent contributions to the Site. It's good to have you back.
This is one of your best headers and I see that it has generated a lot of thoughtful and intelligent discussion - PB at its best. I have only just seen it and would cherry pick the following points.
Revenge doesn't come into it. The woman Letby is plainly barking, but there will always be such people amongst us and we have to do what we can to ensure they are identified and stopped early.
Whoever said it was not just her fault was certainly correct, at the very least beyond the first three cases.
Examples of institutional cover-ups are legion. The earliest I am acquainted with is The Dreyfus Affair where the 'honour of the French Army' was considered sacrosant and more important than justice. We have howver numerous similar contemporary examples far closer to home, the Police and the GPO being just a couple of the more egregious ones.
There is a widespread belief that the desire to protect the institution's good name is a root cause of the problem. I am sick to death with this spurious justification. It is evident from all these examples and many more than the more compelling driving factor was self protection. It follows that we need to develop systems where the best way of protecting oneself is to act in an honest, open and professional way, rather than contrive or collude in a cover up.
I was much impressed by Jim Miller's post in which he cited three types of remedy common in the USA (Internal Affairs Units, support for whistleblowers, and Inspectors General). There is some hope in pursuing some if not all of these avenues.
Numerous posters pointed out correctly that rail and air disasters have become far less common over the years partly because a 'no blame' approach to investigations enabled the root causes to be understood and tackled. We could do with more of this in the our major institutions, and life generally, rather than the customary and vacuous 'lessons will be learned' mantra we usually get.
The first Mrs PtP and I were unfortunate enough to lose two children in infancy. You wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy, so you can imagine the sympathy we have for those who lost infants in this shocking case. I can feel no anger towards the perpetrator though, who is unquestionably guilty and equally unquestionably insane. I do however feel much anger and resentment towards those who were in a position to do something and did nothing, or worse, did the wrong thing. These did not have Letby's excuse, and the thought of them living comfortable lives rankles.
It would rankle less if there were more hope that the advocacy of people like Cyclefree and some of the more perceptive posters in this thread were likely to be be heard. We may be small voices, but who knows. Perhaps someone is listening.
I can't imagine what losing a baby would feel like, I'm so sorry you've had to go through that and all the families who this evil woman has destroyed. You are correct though that the ill will should be reserved for those who ignored the warnings of senior doctors and consultants, threatened them with GMC hearings and forced them to apologise to the murderer. I think if it had happened to my wife and I, I'd stop at nothing until all guilty parties were brought to justice as accessories to the murder of the two babies that Letby killed after she was sent back to work despite warnings from senior consultants. That's what they are, accessories to the murder of those two babies.
State Sixth form accused of wokeness has got 43 kids into Oxbridge.
Is not calling Sixth Form tutors Sir or Miss what passes for woke these days?
I dunno, it seemed to generate a brief spasm of rage among the anti woke when it was first reported. I've never really got the Sir and Miss thing anyway, when I was at school in Scotland we always called teachers by their names, eg Mrs Smith etc, which seems a bit more normal. I totally get the school's thinking on it anyway, and it doesn't seem to have done them any harm.
Never got this either. For a start. How do you distinguish which teacher you are referring to if you don't?
Context. Sir/Miss is second person singular.
I am Carnyx. You are Sir/Miss. He/she is Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss Dixiedean.
I am still very reluctant to finalise the judgement as "consultants good, management bad" when the consultants were clearly busy putting their side of the story to the media yesterday.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
On that basis, I was reflecting on who might have been the most recent monarch of England who could be considered mostly English.
I keep coming back to Queen Anne, whose mother was English although on her father's side her grandmother was French and her father was Scottish.
If we discount her (and presumably also her sister) then I think it would have to be Elizabeth I.
Of course, most English monarchs from 1066 to certainly 1399 were hardly 'English' in that sense...
Weren't the Tudors Welsh? Tudors of Penmynydd.
Owain ap Maredudd was Welsh.
His wife (if they were married) was not. She was French (with a strong dash of German).
Henry VII was their grandson, and his mother could reasonably be called English (any French ancestry she had on either side was distant, despite the 'Beaufort' name). He may have spoken Welsh, but it would be stretching it to call him Welsh.
His wife had one Burgundian grandparent but otherwise her ancestry going back three generations on each side was emphatically English.
That would make Henry VIII as near as dammit English.
His eldest daughter's mother was Spanish, but his two next wives were both English.
So, to conclude this interesting and utterly pointless exercise in xenophobic stereotyping, the Tudors may have been given a Welsh name by later antiquarians (note, they never referred to themselves as the Tudors) but they were English.
You could even make a credible case they are the nearest thing to a fully English dynasty to occupy the throne of England since the death of Edmund Ironside in 1016.
For all my issues with the series, this episode of “You’re dead to me” gives a good and lighthearted background to the Tudors.
State Sixth form accused of wokeness has got 43 kids into Oxbridge.
Is not calling Sixth Form tutors Sir or Miss what passes for woke these days?
I dunno, it seemed to generate a brief spasm of rage among the anti woke when it was first reported. I've never really got the Sir and Miss thing anyway, when I was at school in Scotland we always called teachers by their names, eg Mrs Smith etc, which seems a bit more normal. I totally get the school's thinking on it anyway, and it doesn't seem to have done them any harm.
We did Sir and Ma'am at school. The headmaster explained at the beginning of every year in assembly that "Miss" was disrespectful as you wouldn't call your male teacher by Mr and that many of the female teachers were married. I think it also fit the general aura of discipline that my school had though.
I would also like to say that I am very grateful for the opportunity OGH has given me over the years to write and for all the constructive comments I receive and generally for the debate, which often stimulate other headers, rather than BTL posts.
So you only have yourselves to blame! 😀
And now I really must be off. There is post Storm Betty gardening to be done.
Thanks Cyclefree for this and all your excellent contributions to the Site. It's good to have you back.
This is one of your best headers and I see that it has generated a lot of thoughtful and intelligent discussion - PB at its best. I have only just seen it and would cherry pick the following points.
Revenge doesn't come into it. The woman Letby is plainly barking, but there will always be such people amongst us and we have to do what we can to ensure they are identified and stopped early.
Whoever said it was not just her fault was certainly correct, at the very least beyond the first three cases.
Examples of institutional cover-ups are legion. The earliest I am acquainted with is The Dreyfus Affair where the 'honour of the French Army' was considered sacrosant and more important than justice. We have howver numerous similar contemporary examples far closer to home, the Police and the GPO being just a couple of the more egregious ones.
There is a widespread belief that the desire to protect the institution's good name is a root cause of the problem. I am sick to death with this spurious justification. It is evident from all these examples and many more than the more compelling driving factor was self protection. It follows that we need to develop systems where the best way of protecting oneself is to act in an honest, open and professional way, rather than contrive or collude in a cover up.
I was much impressed by Jim Miller's post in which he cited three types of remedy common in the USA (Internal Affairs Units, support for whistleblowers, and Inspectors General). There is some hope in pursuing some if not all of these avenues.
Numerous posters pointed out correctly that rail and air disasters have become far less common over the years partly because a 'no blame' approach to investigations enabled the root causes to be understood and tackled. We could do with more of this in the our major institutions, and life generally, rather than the customary and vacuous 'lessons will be learned' mantra we usually get.
The first Mrs PtP and I were unfortunate enough to lose two children in infancy. You wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy, so you can imagine the sympathy we have for those who lost infants in this shocking case. I can feel no anger towards the perpetrator though, who is unquestionably guilty and equally unquestionably insane. I do however feel much anger and resentment towards those who were in a position to do something and did nothing, or worse, did the wrong thing. These did not have Letby's excuse, and the thought of them living comfortable lives rankles.
It would rankle less if there were more hope that the advocacy of people like Cyclefree and some of the more perceptive posters in this thread were likely to be be heard. We may be small voices, but who knows. Perhaps someone is listening.
I can't imagine what losing a baby would feel like, I'm so sorry you've had to go through that and all the families who this evil woman has destroyed. You are correct though that the ill will should be reserved for those who ignored the warnings of senior doctors and consultants, threatened them with GMC hearings and forced them to apologise to the murderer. I think if it had happened to my wife and I, I'd stop at nothing until all guilty parties were brought to justice as accessories to the murder of the two babies that Letby killed after she was sent back to work despite warnings from senior consultants. That's what they are, accessories to the murder of those two babies.
Yes, I agree Max.
Thank you for your kind words. It was all a long time ago and although you never forget you do get over it. If I mention these things here it is largely to encourage others who have suffered similar setbacks.
I should add that I have two fine adult children, and two grandchildren who are turning into promising cricketers, so all is well.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
I have as little interest in pledging fealty to Franz, Duke of Bavaria as I have to King Chuck and his horsey sloane wife.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
On that basis, I was reflecting on who might have been the most recent monarch of England who could be considered mostly English.
I keep coming back to Queen Anne, whose mother was English although on her father's side her grandmother was French and her father was Scottish.
If we discount her (and presumably also her sister) then I think it would have to be Elizabeth I.
Of course, most English monarchs from 1066 to certainly 1399 were hardly 'English' in that sense...
Weren't the Tudors Welsh? Tudors of Penmynydd.
Owain ap Maredudd was Welsh.
His wife (if they were married) was not. She was French (with a strong dash of German).
Henry VII was their grandson, and his mother could reasonably be called English (any French ancestry she had on either side was distant, despite the 'Beaufort' name). He may have spoken Welsh, but it would be stretching it to call him Welsh.
His wife had one Burgundian grandparent but otherwise her ancestry going back three generations on each side was emphatically English.
That would make Henry VIII as near as dammit English.
His eldest daughter's mother was Spanish, but his two next wives were both English.
So, to conclude this interesting and utterly pointless exercise in xenophobic stereotyping, the Tudors may have been given a Welsh name by later antiquarians (note, they never referred to themselves as the Tudors) but they were English.
You could even make a credible case they are the nearest thing to a fully English dynasty to occupy the throne of England since the death of Edmund Ironside in 1016.
For all my issues with the series, this episode of “You’re dead to me” gives a good and lighthearted background to the Tudors.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
On that basis, I was reflecting on who might have been the most recent monarch of England who could be considered mostly English.
I keep coming back to Queen Anne, whose mother was English although on her father's side her grandmother was French and her father was Scottish.
If we discount her (and presumably also her sister) then I think it would have to be Elizabeth I.
Of course, most English monarchs from 1066 to certainly 1399 were hardly 'English' in that sense...
Weren't the Tudors Welsh? Tudors of Penmynydd.
Owain ap Maredudd was Welsh.
His wife (if they were married) was not. She was French (with a strong dash of German).
Henry VII was their grandson, and his mother could reasonably be called English (any French ancestry she had on either side was distant, despite the 'Beaufort' name). He may have spoken Welsh, but it would be stretching it to call him Welsh.
His wife had one Burgundian grandparent but otherwise her ancestry going back three generations on each side was emphatically English.
That would make Henry VIII as near as dammit English.
His eldest daughter's mother was Spanish, but his two next wives were both English.
So, to conclude this interesting and utterly pointless exercise in xenophobic stereotyping, the Tudors may have been given a Welsh name by later antiquarians (note, they never referred to themselves as the Tudors) but they were English.
You could even make a credible case they are the nearest thing to a fully English dynasty to occupy the throne of England since the death of Edmund Ironside in 1016.
For all my issues with the series, this episode of “You’re dead to me” gives a good and lighthearted background to the Tudors.
Nothing, saw Mikslovar had changed his profile pic and I liked it and copied it. It’s the simple but effective grey and white imagery with its pro wearing of seatbelts message that works for me.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
On that basis, I was reflecting on who might have been the most recent monarch of England who could be considered mostly English.
I keep coming back to Queen Anne, whose mother was English although on her father's side her grandmother was French and her father was Scottish.
If we discount her (and presumably also her sister) then I think it would have to be Elizabeth I.
Of course, most English monarchs from 1066 to certainly 1399 were hardly 'English' in that sense...
Weren't the Tudors Welsh? Tudors of Penmynydd.
Owain ap Maredudd was Welsh.
His wife (if they were married) was not. She was French (with a strong dash of German).
Henry VII was their grandson, and his mother could reasonably be called English (any French ancestry she had on either side was distant, despite the 'Beaufort' name). He may have spoken Welsh, but it would be stretching it to call him Welsh.
His wife had one Burgundian grandparent but otherwise her ancestry going back three generations on each side was emphatically English.
That would make Henry VIII as near as dammit English.
His eldest daughter's mother was Spanish, but his two next wives were both English.
So, to conclude this interesting and utterly pointless exercise in xenophobic stereotyping, the Tudors may have been given a Welsh name by later antiquarians (note, they never referred to themselves as the Tudors) but they were English.
You could even make a credible case they are the nearest thing to a fully English dynasty to occupy the throne of England since the death of Edmund Ironside in 1016.
For all my issues with the series, this episode of “You’re dead to me” gives a good and lighthearted background to the Tudors.
Nothing, saw Mikslovar had changed his profile pic and I liked it and copied it. It’s the simple but effective grey and white imagery with its pro wearing of seatbelts message that works for me.
State Sixth form accused of wokeness has got 43 kids into Oxbridge.
Is not calling Sixth Form tutors Sir or Miss what passes for woke these days?
I dunno, it seemed to generate a brief spasm of rage among the anti woke when it was first reported. I've never really got the Sir and Miss thing anyway, when I was at school in Scotland we always called teachers by their names, eg Mrs Smith etc, which seems a bit more normal. I totally get the school's thinking on it anyway, and it doesn't seem to have done them any harm.
We did Sir and Ma'am at school. The headmaster explained at the beginning of every year in assembly that "Miss" was disrespectful as you wouldn't call your male teacher by Mr and that many of the female teachers were married. I think it also fit the general aura of discipline that my school had though.
We can't do Ma'am up here. It's the same as Mother.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
On that basis, I was reflecting on who might have been the most recent monarch of England who could be considered mostly English.
I keep coming back to Queen Anne, whose mother was English although on her father's side her grandmother was French and her father was Scottish.
If we discount her (and presumably also her sister) then I think it would have to be Elizabeth I.
Of course, most English monarchs from 1066 to certainly 1399 were hardly 'English' in that sense...
Weren't the Tudors Welsh? Tudors of Penmynydd.
Owain ap Maredudd was Welsh.
His wife (if they were married) was not. She was French (with a strong dash of German).
Henry VII was their grandson, and his mother could reasonably be called English (any French ancestry she had on either side was distant, despite the 'Beaufort' name). He may have spoken Welsh, but it would be stretching it to call him Welsh.
His wife had one Burgundian grandparent but otherwise her ancestry going back three generations on each side was emphatically English.
That would make Henry VIII as near as dammit English.
His eldest daughter's mother was Spanish, but his two next wives were both English.
So, to conclude this interesting and utterly pointless exercise in xenophobic stereotyping, the Tudors may have been given a Welsh name by later antiquarians (note, they never referred to themselves as the Tudors) but they were English.
You could even make a credible case they are the nearest thing to a fully English dynasty to occupy the throne of England since the death of Edmund Ironside in 1016.
For all my issues with the series, this episode of “You’re dead to me” gives a good and lighthearted background to the Tudors.
Nothing, saw Mikslovar had changed his profile pic and I liked it and copied it. It’s the simple but effective grey and white imagery with its pro wearing of seatbelts message that works for me.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
On that basis, I was reflecting on who might have been the most recent monarch of England who could be considered mostly English.
I keep coming back to Queen Anne, whose mother was English although on her father's side her grandmother was French and her father was Scottish.
If we discount her (and presumably also her sister) then I think it would have to be Elizabeth I.
Of course, most English monarchs from 1066 to certainly 1399 were hardly 'English' in that sense...
Weren't the Tudors Welsh? Tudors of Penmynydd.
Owain ap Maredudd was Welsh.
His wife (if they were married) was not. She was French (with a strong dash of German).
Henry VII was their grandson, and his mother could reasonably be called English (any French ancestry she had on either side was distant, despite the 'Beaufort' name). He may have spoken Welsh, but it would be stretching it to call him Welsh.
His wife had one Burgundian grandparent but otherwise her ancestry going back three generations on each side was emphatically English.
That would make Henry VIII as near as dammit English.
His eldest daughter's mother was Spanish, but his two next wives were both English.
So, to conclude this interesting and utterly pointless exercise in xenophobic stereotyping, the Tudors may have been given a Welsh name by later antiquarians (note, they never referred to themselves as the Tudors) but they were English.
You could even make a credible case they are the nearest thing to a fully English dynasty to occupy the throne of England since the death of Edmund Ironside in 1016.
For all my issues with the series, this episode of “You’re dead to me” gives a good and lighthearted background to the Tudors.
Nothing, saw Mikslovar had changed his profile pic and I liked it and copied it. It’s the simple but effective grey and white imagery with its pro wearing of seatbelts message that works for me.
Perhaps we should all be required to follow Doug Seal's example, and put up a photo of ourselves.
State Sixth form accused of wokeness has got 43 kids into Oxbridge.
Is not calling Sixth Form tutors Sir or Miss what passes for woke these days?
I dunno, it seemed to generate a brief spasm of rage among the anti woke when it was first reported. I've never really got the Sir and Miss thing anyway, when I was at school in Scotland we always called teachers by their names, eg Mrs Smith etc, which seems a bit more normal. I totally get the school's thinking on it anyway, and it doesn't seem to have done them any harm.
Never got this either. For a start. How do you distinguish which teacher you are referring to if you don't?
We used "Sir" or "Miss" when talking directly to and addressing the teacher, ie instead of using a first name or full name when speaking to them.
We used surnames, eg Mrs Smith, when speaking about them third party.
My eldest intends to go into teaching. English in high schools. Is non-binary and insists that Mx is not just fine, but anyone refusing is transphobic.
We're trying to patiently (and increasingly less patiently) saying that they are mad, and it will be "Mr" or they won't have a job in most schools. Hopefully their long term gf will straighten their head out.
Its the "transphobic" thing that winds me up. Non-binary is nothing to do with being transgender. I entirely understand the desire to not conform to societal norms. But as my understanding is that they're intending to get engaged to the gf, that is a direct application of societal norms...
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
On that basis, I was reflecting on who might have been the most recent monarch of England who could be considered mostly English.
I keep coming back to Queen Anne, whose mother was English although on her father's side her grandmother was French and her father was Scottish.
If we discount her (and presumably also her sister) then I think it would have to be Elizabeth I.
Of course, most English monarchs from 1066 to certainly 1399 were hardly 'English' in that sense...
Weren't the Tudors Welsh? Tudors of Penmynydd.
Owain ap Maredudd was Welsh.
His wife (if they were married) was not. She was French (with a strong dash of German).
Henry VII was their grandson, and his mother could reasonably be called English (any French ancestry she had on either side was distant, despite the 'Beaufort' name). He may have spoken Welsh, but it would be stretching it to call him Welsh.
His wife had one Burgundian grandparent but otherwise her ancestry going back three generations on each side was emphatically English.
That would make Henry VIII as near as dammit English.
His eldest daughter's mother was Spanish, but his two next wives were both English.
So, to conclude this interesting and utterly pointless exercise in xenophobic stereotyping, the Tudors may have been given a Welsh name by later antiquarians (note, they never referred to themselves as the Tudors) but they were English.
You could even make a credible case they are the nearest thing to a fully English dynasty to occupy the throne of England since the death of Edmund Ironside in 1016.
For all my issues with the series, this episode of “You’re dead to me” gives a good and lighthearted background to the Tudors.
Nothing, saw Mikslovar had changed his profile pic and I liked it and copied it. It’s the simple but effective grey and white imagery with its pro wearing of seatbelts message that works for me.
Recommending wearing a seatbelt across one’s face delightfully subversive.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
On that basis, I was reflecting on who might have been the most recent monarch of England who could be considered mostly English.
I keep coming back to Queen Anne, whose mother was English although on her father's side her grandmother was French and her father was Scottish.
If we discount her (and presumably also her sister) then I think it would have to be Elizabeth I.
Of course, most English monarchs from 1066 to certainly 1399 were hardly 'English' in that sense...
Weren't the Tudors Welsh? Tudors of Penmynydd.
Owain ap Maredudd was Welsh.
His wife (if they were married) was not. She was French (with a strong dash of German).
Henry VII was their grandson, and his mother could reasonably be called English (any French ancestry she had on either side was distant, despite the 'Beaufort' name). He may have spoken Welsh, but it would be stretching it to call him Welsh.
His wife had one Burgundian grandparent but otherwise her ancestry going back three generations on each side was emphatically English.
That would make Henry VIII as near as dammit English.
His eldest daughter's mother was Spanish, but his two next wives were both English.
So, to conclude this interesting and utterly pointless exercise in xenophobic stereotyping, the Tudors may have been given a Welsh name by later antiquarians (note, they never referred to themselves as the Tudors) but they were English.
You could even make a credible case they are the nearest thing to a fully English dynasty to occupy the throne of England since the death of Edmund Ironside in 1016.
For all my issues with the series, this episode of “You’re dead to me” gives a good and lighthearted background to the Tudors.
Nothing, saw Mikslovar had changed his profile pic and I liked it and copied it. It’s the simple but effective grey and white imagery with its pro wearing of seatbelts message that works for me.
Perhaps we should all be required to follow Doug Seal's example, and put up a photo of ourselves.
Oh, that's a shock. You don't have the intelligence and application of a Border Collie?
Hmm. Struck by the multilayered, Swiss cheese slice holes lining up in a row (as Sandpit reminded us) 'faults' in those examples and the F-35 on the carrier - in the latter case, for instance, the government would indignantly deny blame, but they imposed the situation in which the assorted service and civilian roof rats and the jet jockey screwed up massively.
I actually don't hold the government culpable for this as they are civvie shitc*nts who know fuck all about fuck all. Being told by politicians do things for which preparations are grossly inadequate is an expected and recurrent theme in military life.
Ultimately, Cdr Air should hang for it as they failed to create a culture in which safety was even a consideration never mind a priority. The handling pilot should walk the plank as well because there is zero extenuation or excuse for not properly conducting the pre-flight.
Incidentally - Google throws up three Karen Reeses who work in healthcare. One at Warwick, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester.
I think we can all feel sympathy for them today as idiots will be sending them nasty messages in confusion with *that* Karen Rees.
The Daily Mail may have done a rare public service in revealing her change of name and new occupation.
The recreated face of Bonnie Prince Charlie is also worried he might be mistaken for Lucy Letby.
Didn't he have a part in the Vicar of Dibley?
Unionist plot to make him look pot ugly, looks nothing like the pictures of him.
Pretty sure BPC was a Unionist too?
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
He did. Culloden was a dynastic squabble of two kings' sons on behalf of their respective paters.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I don't know why republicanism has taken off in Scotland the last 10 years or so in the nationalist fraternity.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
On that basis, I was reflecting on who might have been the most recent monarch of England who could be considered mostly English.
I keep coming back to Queen Anne, whose mother was English although on her father's side her grandmother was French and her father was Scottish.
If we discount her (and presumably also her sister) then I think it would have to be Elizabeth I.
Of course, most English monarchs from 1066 to certainly 1399 were hardly 'English' in that sense...
Weren't the Tudors Welsh? Tudors of Penmynydd.
Owain ap Maredudd was Welsh.
His wife (if they were married) was not. She was French (with a strong dash of German).
Henry VII was their grandson, and his mother could reasonably be called English (any French ancestry she had on either side was distant, despite the 'Beaufort' name). He may have spoken Welsh, but it would be stretching it to call him Welsh.
His wife had one Burgundian grandparent but otherwise her ancestry going back three generations on each side was emphatically English.
That would make Henry VIII as near as dammit English.
His eldest daughter's mother was Spanish, but his two next wives were both English.
So, to conclude this interesting and utterly pointless exercise in xenophobic stereotyping, the Tudors may have been given a Welsh name by later antiquarians (note, they never referred to themselves as the Tudors) but they were English.
You could even make a credible case they are the nearest thing to a fully English dynasty to occupy the throne of England since the death of Edmund Ironside in 1016.
For all my issues with the series, this episode of “You’re dead to me” gives a good and lighthearted background to the Tudors.
Nothing, saw Mikslovar had changed his profile pic and I liked it and copied it. It’s the simple but effective grey and white imagery with its pro wearing of seatbelts message that works for me.
Perhaps we should all be required to follow Doug Seal's example, and put up a photo of ourselves.
Comments
As if doing the one could blot out the other.
Personally I'd have back everyone who has been banned, not up to me!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_European_Airways_Flight_548
Mr. Sandpit, what pub grub does Ukraine have? Pork scratchings?
IIRC
Thanks to the wonder of everyone now using QR codes instead of menus, here’s the full selection of food and drink.
Meanwhile they ignored the evidence that baby deaths were ten times what you’d normally expect and that one nurse had been on duty for all of them. The sort of thing that shouldn’t actually require a £100k+ salary to notice.
Anyhoo the YouTube "TheFlightChannel" has many reconstructions of plane crashes. Not one I watch because you can't listen to it whilst working, but very useful for second-by-second plays revealing what went wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/@theflightchannel/videos
So, presumably 'Strav' means food? My memory of Cyrillic isn't fantastic.
He just wanted The Union under the House of Stuart, not the Hanoverians.
Ironically if he'd been contented with Scotland and consolidated, he might have lasted rather longer and maybe even made it to KCIII major.
I think Ukraine is the cheapest place I’ve bought in pint in recent memory (around 50p), and Singapore the most expensive, (around £15).
One of the joys of a long term relationship is that there is an eternal youth to it. Though it is 35 years ago, Mrs Foxy in my mind is still that 23 year old that I first dated in 1988.
State Sixth form accused of wokeness has got 43 kids into Oxbridge.
A vibey/ anti-British state thing?
It's a bit weird because the monarchy is more Scottish than it is English, the late Queen was literally half-Scottish, KCIII loves it and Queen Vic loved it, and the oath the monarch takes give special protection to the Kirk - I recall that went on for ages at KCIII's proclamation.
Bit odd. Surely the real nationalist take would be to resurrect a purely Scottish line of monarchs, possibly finding a tenuous Stuart branch again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Mull_of_Kintyre_Chinook_crash
But "B"PC is about the worst advertisement for the monarchy one can get, apart from KC1.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66104004
Makes for very uncomfortable reading, I think there’s some dust in my eye.
As if there's never in the history of the criminal justice system been a miscarriage of justice?
An innocent person being imprisoned for years is awful but unavoidable sometimes. An innocent person being killed by the state before they can be acquitted down the line is unforgiveable.
He’s not cancelled merely inconvenienced.
Does anyone ever get a permaban here ?
Essentially, the reason was executed - somewhat reluctantly by many at the time - was because that was felt to be the only way to politically resolve the situation.
This is one of your best headers and I see that it has generated a lot of thoughtful and intelligent discussion - PB at its best. I have only just seen it and would cherry pick the following points.
Revenge doesn't come into it. The woman Letby is plainly barking, but there will always be such people amongst us and we have to do what we can to ensure they are identified and stopped early.
Whoever said it was not just her fault was certainly correct, at the very least beyond the first three cases.
Examples of institutional cover-ups are legion. The earliest I am acquainted with is The Dreyfus Affair where the 'honour of the French Army' was considered sacrosant and more important than justice. We have howver numerous similar contemporary examples far closer to home, the Police and the GPO being just a couple of the more egregious ones.
There is a widespread belief that the desire to protect the institution's good name is a root cause of the problem. I am sick to death with this spurious justification. It is evident from all these examples and many more than the more compelling driving factor was self protection. It follows that we need to develop systems where the best way of protecting oneself is to act in an honest, open and professional way, rather than contrive or collude in a cover up.
I was much impressed by Jim Miller's post in which he cited three types of remedy common in the USA (Internal Affairs Units, support for whistleblowers, and Inspectors General). There is some hope in pursuing some if not all of these avenues.
Numerous posters pointed out correctly that rail and air disasters have become far less common over the years partly because a 'no blame' approach to investigations enabled the root causes to be understood and tackled. We could do with more of this in the our major institutions, and life generally, rather than the customary and vacuous 'lessons will be learned' mantra we usually get.
The first Mrs PtP and I were unfortunate enough to lose two children in infancy. You wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy, so you can imagine the sympathy we have for those who lost infants in this shocking case. I can feel no anger towards the perpetrator though, who is unquestionably guilty and equally unquestionably insane. I do however feel much anger and resentment towards those who were in a position to do something and did nothing, or worse, did the wrong thing. These did not have Letby's excuse, and the thought of them living comfortable lives rankles.
It would rankle less if there were more hope that the advocacy of people like Cyclefree and some of the more perceptive posters in this thread were likely to be be heard. We may be small voices, but who knows. Perhaps someone is listening.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12421417/Disturbing-text-messages-Lucy-Letby-murdering-innocent-babies.html
It's a shame because done right it's very necessary.
I keep coming back to Queen Anne, whose mother was English although on her father's side her grandmother was French and her father was Scottish.
If we discount her (and presumably also her sister) then I think it would have to be Elizabeth I.
Of course, most English monarchs from 1066 to certainly 1399 were hardly 'English' in that sense...
The politest thing I could say about its management structure was that the people involved were a serious risk to everyone around them including the children.
I can't say the rudest thing I'd like to, but suffice to say it sounds a bit like the second word of this sentence...
That's progress.
Believe me. You notice the difference.
Journalism is the practice of people talking to others, selecting and discarding people and events into a story related by words. I can't help thinking it's not enough these days. Where were the graphs? Where were the 2x2 tables? Where were the barcharts, the maps, the choropleths? Where was the visualisation comparing Letby's attendance with increased mortality? If she was an outlier, where was the graph on which she outlied?
You can plot Harold Shipman on a map, or more specifically his deaths. There are clusters by his house and by a local pub, which supports the narrative that he liked to kill his victims before he clocked off for the day. A good dot map tells you that in less than a second. I believe the BBC has a data vis unit. I'd like to see what they could produce for Lucy Letby.
For a start. How do you distinguish which teacher you are referring to if you don't?
Health and Safety is a classic. Long ago I lost an uncle to a building site accident. He was struck on the head by an oxygen cylinder. No hard hats in those days. Now you are not allowed on a site without one and this is a very good thing, but the Elf 'n Safe Tea industry has grown to the point where the small local fountain in my local park has a large yellow sign stating 'Caution; slippery when wet'.
Somewhere there is an employee thinking of these things and putting them into practice, at our expense.
We used surnames, eg Mrs Smith, when speaking about them third party.
We didn't use Sir or Miss in Sixth Form though.
What's so radical about that?
Tudors of Penmynydd.
Note - I never remember how to spell bureaucracy to the point where my attempts are so bad spellcheck doesn’t even know what I’m trying to do.
His wife (if they were married) was not. She was French (with a strong dash of German).
Henry VII was their grandson, and his mother could reasonably be called English (any French ancestry she had on either side was distant, despite the 'Beaufort' name). He may have spoken Welsh, but it would be stretching it to call him Welsh.
His wife had one Burgundian grandparent but otherwise her ancestry going back three generations on each side was emphatically English.
That would make Henry VIII as near as dammit English.
His eldest daughter's mother was Spanish, but his two next wives were both English.
So, to conclude this interesting and utterly pointless exercise in xenophobic stereotyping, the Tudors may have been given a Welsh name by later antiquarians (note, they never referred to themselves as the Tudors) but they were English.
You could even make a credible case they are the nearest thing to a fully English dynasty to occupy the throne of England since the death of Edmund Ironside in 1016.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/mar/15/john-snow-cholera-map
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0fk5v2p?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12264639/Gen-Z-millennials-use-thumbs-phones-dont-fingers-dont-look-like-grandparents.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumb_tribe
I am Carnyx.
You are Sir/Miss.
He/she is Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss Dixiedean.
Thank you for your kind words. It was all a long time ago and although you never forget you do get over it. If I mention these things here it is largely to encourage others who have suffered similar setbacks.
I should add that I have two fine adult children, and two grandchildren who are turning into promising cricketers, so all is well.
It's the same as Mother.
We're trying to patiently (and increasingly less patiently) saying that they are mad, and it will be "Mr" or they won't have a job in most schools. Hopefully their long term gf will straighten their head out.
Its the "transphobic" thing that winds me up. Non-binary is nothing to do with being transgender. I entirely understand the desire to not conform to societal norms. But as my understanding is that they're intending to get engaged to the gf, that is a direct application of societal norms...
Ultimately, Cdr Air should hang for it as they failed to create a culture in which safety was even a consideration never mind a priority. The handling pilot should walk the plank as well because there is zero extenuation or excuse for not properly conducting the pre-flight.