Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A personal note from Mike Smithson – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,984

    I find French literature, and therefore on presumes the French mind, is quite attentive to ethnicity.

    An English book might say, “A man walked down the street, grey-haired and stooped, with a long beard. He wore a yarmulke…etc”.

    A French book will say, “An old Jew walked down the street, grey-haired and stooped”.

    Given one of their literary greats is essentially “I shot the Arab” I’d agree.
  • I personally find “Kiwi” a bit twee and patronising.
    I prefer New Zealander. But I am v old fashioned in these matters.

    :innocent:
  • I find French literature, and therefore on presumes the French mind, is quite attentive to ethnicity.

    An English book might say, “A man walked down the street, grey-haired and stooped, with a long beard. He wore a yarmulke…etc”.

    A French book will say, “An old Jew walked down the street, grey-haired and stooped”.

    During the Rugby World Cup, while the All Backs were doing the Haka in the match against Ireland, the French broadcasters seemed unduly fixated on Ireland's Bundee Aki. It felt a bit odd.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,263
    edited November 2023
    BLUE PLANKTON is not a racial slur

    The owner of this frankly amazing hotel told me that if you go in the sea at night and paddle about, you stir up bio-luminescent plankton, like a trillion sapphire fireflies have been hiding under the waves - whirls and whorls of blue and silver sparkles

    And he’s right, Enchanting. Forty years of travel and that’s the first time I have encountered BLUE PLANKTON

    https://www.explore.com/1184218/the-best-way-to-see-the-unbelievable-underwater-glowing-plankton-in-koh-rong-cambodia/
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,523
    ydoethur said:

    Idle thought on IHT - if Hunt were to combine a reduction with elimination (for future bequests) of the 7-year exemption, I think most of us would feel that was a fair deal. The current arrangement is of course more or less voluntary for people who know how it works, but it's unfair to families of people with less know-how and the luncky who drop dead prematurely. If any gift in the most recent 25 years was counted as part of the legacy, that would orevent most avoidance, though only gradually since you couldn't do it retrospectively.

    When you say 'elimination,' do you mean to stop including such gifts in IHT, or to stop excluding them?

    Because the latter would be very difficult indeed to enforce. Would I have had to trace the small money presents my father gave his nieces for Christmas when they were five to sort IHT out?
    I meant stop excluding them, but I agree there would need to be a de minimis rule - say anything over £1000?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,631
    Leon said:

    BLUE PLANKTON is not a racial slur

    The owner of this frankly amazing hotel told me that if you go in the sea at night and paddle about, you stir up bio-luminescent plankton, like a trillion sapphire fireflies have been hiding under the weaves - whirls and whorls of blue sparkles

    And he’s right, Enchanting. Forty years of travel and that’s the first time I have encountered BLUE PLANKTON

    https://www.explore.com/1184218/the-best-way-to-see-the-unbelievable-underwater-glowing-plankton-in-koh-rong-cambodia/

    Yeah, it's weird. I have swum in it at Keppel Island in Queensland.

    A famous place to party. "Get wrecked on Keppel" used to be their advertising and I think where the Island scene in Marie's Wedding was filmed.

    Drunken skinny dipping was not a sensible thing to do, but the fluorescent trails irresistible.



  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,818
    Leon said:

    BLUE PLANKTON is not a racial slur

    The owner of this frankly amazing hotel told me that if you go in the sea at night and paddle about, you stir up bio-luminescent plankton, like a trillion sapphire fireflies have been hiding under the weaves - whirls and whorls of blue sparkles

    And he’s right, Enchanting. Forty years of travel and that’s the first time I have encountered BLUE PLANKTON

    https://www.explore.com/1184218/the-best-way-to-see-the-unbelievable-underwater-glowing-plankton-in-koh-rong-cambodia/

    Saw that in the Outer Hebrides at night. Perhaps not so intense?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,631
    edited November 2023

    I find French literature, and therefore on presumes the French mind, is quite attentive to ethnicity.

    An English book might say, “A man walked down the street, grey-haired and stooped, with a long beard. He wore a yarmulke…etc”.

    A French book will say, “An old Jew walked down the street, grey-haired and stooped”.

    To be fair, in the 1950s a lot of British literature wasn't very different. Neville Shute or WE Johns for example.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,241
    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Police are under orders to step in if pro-Palestinian protesters climb war memorials today - with hundreds of thousands expected at more than 100 rallies across the UK
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12764819/Police-orders-step-pro-Palestinian-protesters-climb-war-memorials-today-hundreds-thousands-expected-100-rallies-UK.html

    A week is a long time in politics and also in policing.

    There are no pro-Palestinian protestors.

    They are anti-Israel protestors or for some anti-Jew protestors.
    You might be better using 'Jewish' than 'Jew'. It's less pejorative. Imagine you are talking about a doctor or a banker and then put your 'Jew' in front of it and you might get an idea of how unpleasant it sounds.
    The word "Jew" really isn't pejorative.
    It can be when used like that. On a related note, I'm half-convinced the term "jew hate" has only been used since I wondered on pb if the public understood the word antisemitism. No doubt mere coincidence but certainly it is not old enough to vote.
    Of course it can be used pejoratively. So can any number of other words - black, gay, Irish, man, woman, Tory, Socialist.

    But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies.
    In a phrase like "jew doctor", it is.
    I'm not sure quite what you are having trouble understanding in the comment "Of course it can be used pejoratively. ... But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies."

    The difference between using it as a noun and an adjective surely?

    Jew art
    Jewish art
    Art by a Jew

    Context is all of course but the first one could only be pejorative I think.
    Thank heaven someone here understands the difference between a noun and an adjective. Perhaps not all is lost.

    Obviously the word "Jew" is properly a noun. And yes, I'd agree its use as an adjective is normally pejorative (as well as ungrammatical). But to suggest it's pejorative when it's used as a noun is ridiculous.
    It can be pejorative even when used as a noun

    “Yes, he’s a Jew”

    “My lawyer is a Jew”

    “That painting is by a Jew”

    “Yes, and she’s a Jew”

    It is thanks to the many centuries of anti Semitism and it logically shouldn’t be the case, but it is a fact that even the simplest use of the noun “Jew” can sound grating and potentially offensive

    Perhaps we are all over sensitive but
    Them’s the times we live in

    Compare with the similarly tortured way we try to find the right words for “black people” -
    that’s an even nastier verbal minefield,
    such that we have recently outlawed “black and minority ethnic people” as also being
    offensive. I forget what is the correct term of
    the moment

    Most diminutives for nationalities are pretty negative - if you think about Jap/Frog/Yank etc without having to even go to “P***” for Pakistanis.

    “Brit”, and “Aussie” are the only ones that doesn’t seem to have a negative slant, although don’t know what abbreviations other nations use for themselves. (I’d class Kiwi as a nickname rather than an abbreviation)

  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,263
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    BLUE PLANKTON is not a racial slur

    The owner of this frankly amazing hotel told me that if you go in the sea at night and paddle about, you stir up bio-luminescent plankton, like a trillion sapphire fireflies have been hiding under the weaves - whirls and whorls of blue sparkles

    And he’s right, Enchanting. Forty years of travel and that’s the first time I have encountered BLUE PLANKTON

    https://www.explore.com/1184218/the-best-way-to-see-the-unbelievable-underwater-glowing-plankton-in-koh-rong-cambodia/

    Yeah, it's weird. I have swum in it at Keppel Island in Queensland.

    A famous place to party. "Get wrecked on Keppel" used to be their advertising and I think where the Island scene in Marie's Wedding was filmed.

    Drunken skinny dipping was not a sensible thing to do, but the fluorescent trails irresistible.



    it’s brilliant. turns you into a five year old enchanted by balloons or ladybirds

    Every movement creates trails of stars and jewels in the water. OOOOH

    Tomorrow I’m gettting a proper snorkel set and going out at midnight
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,058
    edited November 2023
    Your regular reminder that the Tories don't give a shit about Free Speech unless they agree with what you're saying beforehand

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/18/shocking-scale-of-uk-governments-secret-files-on-critics-revealed

    "Fifteen government departments have been monitoring the social media activity of potential critics and compiling “secret files” in order to block them from speaking at public events, the Observer can reveal.

    Under the guidelines issued in each department, including the departments of health, culture, media and sport, and environment, food and rural affairs, officials are advised to check experts’ Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn accounts. They are also told to conduct Google searches on those individuals, using specific terms such as “criticism of government or prime minister”.

    The guidelines are designed to prevent anyone who has criticised the government in the previous three to five years from speaking at government-organised conferences and other events.
    "
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298

    I find French literature, and therefore on presumes the French mind, is quite attentive to ethnicity.

    An English book might say, “A man walked down the street, grey-haired and stooped, with a long beard. He wore a yarmulke…etc”.

    A French book will say, “An old Jew walked down the street, grey-haired and stooped”.

    During the Rugby World Cup, while the All Backs were doing the Haka in the match against Ireland, the French broadcasters seemed unduly fixated on Ireland's Bundee Aki. It felt a bit odd.
    I think the French are just more attuned to race, somehow. The Brits are more attuned to class.

    I find it v interesting that Sunak, Braverman, and Patel are all the children of East African-born Indian disaspora, but it’s hardly ever remarked upon and I think most people don’t even really think about Sunak’s ethnicity.

    It’s somehow less relevant than the fact he is “posh”.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,993

    eristdoof said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    An ad on the radio just now got me thinking about American cultural imports in the last decade. There have been many: the rate has definitely accelerated. To name just a few:

    - Black Friday (that’s what triggered the thought)
    - “Season” rather than series
    - the final, grinding Bakhmut-style victory of “ATM”
    - “Woke”
    - “Culture war”
    - “Incel”
    - “Passed” instead of died (or even passed away)
    - “STEM”
    - A whole plethora of baseball expressions, like “circle back”

    I could go on. During that time all we’ve managed in return is to give them “close of play”

    Nonsense. We’ve also given them dozens of football expressions, for starters

    Also “brilliant”, “wanker”, “posh” and multiple others. All making inroads

    We don’t notice because we’re not American and don’t realise they don’t have these expressions, and when you encounter them in the States you don’t realise they are imports

    That said, I do detest “Black Friday”, which is absolutely meaningless out of its Thanksgiving context, unlike, say, Halloween which is an original British export reimported, the same way we imported the Blues and gave it back to them in the 1960s
    The one that amazes me is "fortnight". I've often been asked, "do you guys really say fortnight?"
    "Yes of course", I reply, "what do you say?"
    It seems that "two weeks" is quite sufficient for much of the world!
    There's a whole bunch of related words that have fallen by the wayside. Sennight - Seven nights, a week. Overmorrow - The day after tomorrow. Yestereve - Yesterday evening. Ereyesterday - The day before yesterday.

    So really the curiosity is how fortnight (lit. fourteen nights) has survived.

    The modern calendar could do with a handy name for a week and the two weekends at each end of it - i.e. the nine days that constitute a school half-term, or your time away from work when, as a standard 5-day a week worker, you take a full 5 weekdays off as a holiday.
    Enderweekender?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,263
    Apparently Koh Rong is famous for it, globally. Who knew. Not me

    https://recklessroaming.com/bioluminescent-plankton-koh-rong/
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,138

    All ethnic proper nouns now sound old-fashioned, if not offensive.

    Negro
    Jew
    Spaniard
    Chinaman (or “Chinese” as a noun).

    An Italian still works, I think, as does Finn, Swede, Dane, and Russian. Pole is not appropriate. Scot also sounds patronising.

    Sad times.

    Are there not two separate categories here - ethnic and national?

    To my ear, the national ones seem OK - Spaniard, Latvian, Pole (what's wrong there?), Russian, South African, Frenchman, Canadian, Englishman, Scot, Argentinian etc.

    I'd generally agree on the ethnic proper nouns - unless perhaps they are used for identity. Is Hispanic unacceptable, in particular?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    Foxy said:

    I find French literature, and therefore on presumes the French mind, is quite attentive to ethnicity.

    An English book might say, “A man walked down the street, grey-haired and stooped, with a long beard. He wore a yarmulke…etc”.

    A French book will say, “An old Jew walked down the street, grey-haired and stooped”.

    To be fair, in the 1950s a lot of British literature wasn't very different. Neville Shute or WE Johns for example.
    No, I think this is a persistent difference. Also, I’d hardly call “Neville Shute or WE Johns” indicative, even in the 1950s.

    I can’t prove my thesis though, without fancy resource to a multi-lingual corpus. Sounds like a job for AI.
  • Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Police are under orders to step in if pro-Palestinian protesters climb war memorials today - with hundreds of thousands expected at more than 100 rallies across the UK
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12764819/Police-orders-step-pro-Palestinian-protesters-climb-war-memorials-today-hundreds-thousands-expected-100-rallies-UK.html

    A week is a long time in politics and also in policing.

    There are no pro-Palestinian protestors.

    They are anti-Israel protestors or for some anti-Jew protestors.
    You might be better using 'Jewish' than 'Jew'. It's less pejorative. Imagine you are talking about a doctor or a banker and then put your 'Jew' in front of it and you might get an idea of how unpleasant it sounds.
    The word "Jew" really isn't pejorative.
    It can be when used like that. On a related note, I'm half-convinced the term "jew hate" has only been used since I wondered on pb if the public understood the word antisemitism. No doubt mere coincidence but certainly it is not old enough to vote.
    Of course it can be used pejoratively. So can any number of other words - black, gay, Irish, man, woman, Tory, Socialist.

    But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies.
    In a phrase like "jew doctor", it is.
    I'm not sure quite what you are having trouble understanding in the comment "Of course it can be used pejoratively. ... But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies."

    The difference between using it as a noun and an adjective surely?

    Jew art
    Jewish art
    Art by a Jew

    Context is all of course but the first one could only be pejorative I think.
    Thank heaven someone here understands the difference between a noun and an adjective. Perhaps not all is lost.

    Obviously the word "Jew" is properly a noun. And yes, I'd agree its use as an adjective is normally pejorative (as well as ungrammatical). But to suggest it's pejorative when it's used as a noun is ridiculous.
    It can be pejorative even when used as a noun

    “Yes, he’s a Jew”

    “My lawyer is a Jew”

    “That painting is by a Jew”

    “Yes, and she’s a Jew”

    It is thanks to the many centuries of anti Semitism and it logically shouldn’t be the case, but it is a fact that even the simplest use of the noun “Jew” can sound grating and potentially offensive

    Perhaps we are all over sensitive but
    Them’s the times we live in

    Compare with the similarly tortured way we try to find the right words for “black people” -
    that’s an even nastier verbal minefield,
    such that we have recently outlawed “black and minority ethnic people” as also being
    offensive. I forget what is the correct term of
    the moment

    Most diminutives for nationalities are pretty negative - if you think about Jap/Frog/Yank etc without having to even go to “P***” for Pakistanis.

    “Brit”, and “Aussie” are the only ones that doesn’t seem to have a negative slant, although don’t know what abbreviations other nations use for themselves. (I’d class Kiwi as a nickname rather than an abbreviation)

    I think there are parts of Ireland where ‘Brit’ isn’t tinged with respect and affection.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,130

    All ethnic proper nouns now sound old-fashioned, if not offensive.

    Negro
    Jew
    Spaniard
    Chinaman (or “Chinese” as a noun).

    An Italian still works, I think, as does Finn, Swede, Dane, and Russian. Pole is not appropriate. Scot also sounds patronising.

    Sad times.

    Some of this is to do with the general sense of the noun being 'harder' than the adjective in that it kind of seeks to define you, to say you ARE this 'it' and this 'it' is what you are. As opposed to the adjective which more has the sense of saying this 'it' is just one of the many things you are and thus does not define you.

    Eg "Person X is racist" is an insult but "Person X is a racist" is a stronger one.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,241

    Idle thought on IHT - if Hunt were to combine a reduction with elimination (for future bequests) of the 7-year exemption, I think most of us would feel that was a fair deal. The current arrangement is of course more or less voluntary for people who know how it works, but it's unfair to families of people with less know-how and the luncky who drop dead prematurely. If any gift in the most recent 25 years was counted as part of the legacy, that would orevent most avoidance, though only gradually since you couldn't do it retrospectively.

    Although it would be an administrative nightmare. Imagine keeping records of all transactions between parents and kids over that period.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    MattW said:

    All ethnic proper nouns now sound old-fashioned, if not offensive.

    Negro
    Jew
    Spaniard
    Chinaman (or “Chinese” as a noun).

    An Italian still works, I think, as does Finn, Swede, Dane, and Russian. Pole is not appropriate. Scot also sounds patronising.

    Sad times.

    Are there not two separate categories here - ethnic and national?

    To my ear, the national ones seem OK - Spaniard, Latvian, Pole (what's wrong there?), Russian, South African, Frenchman, Canadian, Englishman, Scot, Argentinian etc.

    I'd generally agree on the ethnic proper nouns - unless perhaps they are used for identity. Is Hispanic unacceptable, in particular?
    There’s something maybe in the mono-syllable that is vaguely offensive,

    “A Polish man” sounds better “a Pole”.

    And I think the ones ending -man sound old fashioned. Even Englishman.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,263
    Just realised that one reason Cambodia is so Edenic, now, is that it has such a terrible history. It has been consistently thwarted, it never industrialized, its forests and seas remain (relatively) untouched (tho the wildlife took a beating during the Khmer Rouge famine)

    And the KR reduced the population by a third. The human pressure is lesser. The idyllic islands are only now succumbing to tourism, because of that awful history. The reason the blue plankton is so good is because there aren’t many people, there’s much less light pollution, the clean sea is rich in life

    A poignant paradox
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373

    ydoethur said:

    Idle thought on IHT - if Hunt were to combine a reduction with elimination (for future bequests) of the 7-year exemption, I think most of us would feel that was a fair deal. The current arrangement is of course more or less voluntary for people who know how it works, but it's unfair to families of people with less know-how and the luncky who drop dead prematurely. If any gift in the most recent 25 years was counted as part of the legacy, that would orevent most avoidance, though only gradually since you couldn't do it retrospectively.

    When you say 'elimination,' do you mean to stop including such gifts in IHT, or to stop excluding them?

    Because the latter would be very difficult indeed to enforce. Would I have had to trace the small money presents my father gave his nieces for Christmas when they were five to sort IHT out?
    I meant stop excluding them, but I agree there would need to be a de minimis rule - say anything over £1000?
    Again, I think logging that throughout somebody's lifetime would be rather tricky. Are we supposed to keep bank records ad infinitum? Should banks? GDPR might have something to say on that.

    Even if it was legally required, I doubt if many people would keep records that carefully in practice. You'd end up with a load of prosecutions for incompetence.

    It already actually does, in practice, go back further than 7 years. I needed a list of all gifts made by my father from the previous 14 years. Which, even though he was and I am very meticulous sort of people who keep very careful records, was very far from easy.

    An easier hit would be resolving the anomaly on a primary dwelling to a direct descendant.

    Ultimately I would suggest one problem is people think IHT is designed as a way of raising money, which it doesn't really (in fact it probably costs as much as it raises - a sure sign of a badly designed tax). The reality is it's a form of social engineering. Which is allowed and has indeed merits of its own but would be better if it were openly acknowledged as such.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,579

    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Police are under orders to step in if pro-Palestinian protesters climb war memorials today - with hundreds of thousands expected at more than 100 rallies across the UK
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12764819/Police-orders-step-pro-Palestinian-protesters-climb-war-memorials-today-hundreds-thousands-expected-100-rallies-UK.html

    A week is a long time in politics and also in policing.

    There are no pro-Palestinian protestors.

    They are anti-Israel protestors or for some anti-Jew protestors.
    You might be better using 'Jewish' than 'Jew'. It's less pejorative. Imagine you are talking about a doctor or a banker and then put your 'Jew' in front of it and you might get an idea of how unpleasant it sounds.
    The word "Jew" really isn't pejorative.
    It can be when used like that. On a related note, I'm half-convinced the term "jew hate" has only been used since I wondered on pb if the public understood the word antisemitism. No doubt mere coincidence but certainly it is not old enough to vote.
    Of course it can be used pejoratively. So can any number of other words - black, gay, Irish, man, woman, Tory, Socialist.

    But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies.
    In a phrase like "jew doctor", it is.
    I'm not sure quite what you are having trouble understanding in the comment "Of course it can be used pejoratively. ... But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies."

    The difference between using it as a noun and an adjective surely?

    Jew art
    Jewish art
    Art by a Jew

    Context is all of course but the first one could only be pejorative I think.
    Thank heaven someone here understands the difference between a noun and an adjective. Perhaps not all is lost.

    Obviously the word "Jew" is properly a noun. And yes, I'd agree its use as an adjective is normally pejorative (as well as ungrammatical). But to suggest it's pejorative when it's used as a noun is ridiculous.
    It can be pejorative even when used as a noun

    “Yes, he’s a Jew”

    “My lawyer is a Jew”

    “That painting is by a Jew”

    “Yes, and she’s a Jew”

    It is thanks to the many centuries of anti Semitism and it logically shouldn’t be the case, but it is a fact that even the simplest use of the noun “Jew” can sound grating and potentially offensive

    Perhaps we are all over sensitive but
    Them’s the times we live in

    Compare with the similarly tortured way we try to find the right words for “black people” -
    that’s an even nastier verbal minefield,
    such that we have recently outlawed “black and minority ethnic people” as also being
    offensive. I forget what is the correct term of
    the moment

    Most diminutives for nationalities are pretty negative - if you think about Jap/Frog/Yank etc without having to even go to “P***” for Pakistanis.

    “Brit”, and “Aussie” are the only ones that doesn’t seem to have a negative slant, although don’t know what abbreviations other nations use for themselves. (I’d class Kiwi as a nickname rather than an abbreviation)

    I think there are parts of Ireland where ‘Brit’ isn’t tinged with respect and affection.
    Not to mention "West Brit".
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    Foxy said:

    I find French literature, and therefore on presumes the French mind, is quite attentive to ethnicity.

    An English book might say, “A man walked down the street, grey-haired and stooped, with a long beard. He wore a yarmulke…etc”.

    A French book will say, “An old Jew walked down the street, grey-haired and stooped”.

    To be fair, in the 1950s a lot of British literature wasn't very different. Neville Shute or WE Johns for example.
    I'm intrigued. Where did Nevil Shute have much to say on Jews? Trustee from the Toolroom, in passing, perhaps.

    Sayers in the 1920s would have been a better analogy.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,263

    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Police are under orders to step in if pro-Palestinian protesters climb war memorials today - with hundreds of thousands expected at more than 100 rallies across the UK
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12764819/Police-orders-step-pro-Palestinian-protesters-climb-war-memorials-today-hundreds-thousands-expected-100-rallies-UK.html

    A week is a long time in politics and also in policing.

    There are no pro-Palestinian protestors.

    They are anti-Israel protestors or for some anti-Jew protestors.
    You might be better using 'Jewish' than 'Jew'. It's less pejorative. Imagine you are talking about a doctor or a banker and then put your 'Jew' in front of it and you might get an idea of how unpleasant it sounds.
    The word "Jew" really isn't pejorative.
    It can be when used like that. On a related note, I'm half-convinced the term "jew hate" has only been used since I wondered on pb if the public understood the word antisemitism. No doubt mere coincidence but certainly it is not old enough to vote.
    Of course it can be used pejoratively. So can any number of other words - black, gay, Irish, man, woman, Tory, Socialist.

    But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies.
    In a phrase like "jew doctor", it is.
    I'm not sure quite what you are having trouble understanding in the comment "Of course it can be used pejoratively. ... But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies."

    The difference between using it as a noun and an adjective surely?

    Jew art
    Jewish art
    Art by a Jew

    Context is all of course but the first one could only be pejorative I think.
    Thank heaven someone here understands the difference between a noun and an adjective. Perhaps not all is lost.

    Obviously the word "Jew" is properly a noun. And yes, I'd agree its use as an adjective is normally pejorative (as well as ungrammatical). But to suggest it's pejorative when it's used as a noun is ridiculous.
    It can be pejorative even when used as a noun

    “Yes, he’s a Jew”

    “My lawyer is a Jew”

    “That painting is by a Jew”

    “Yes, and she’s a Jew”

    It is thanks to the many centuries of anti Semitism and it logically shouldn’t be the case, but it is a fact that even the simplest use of the noun “Jew” can sound grating and potentially offensive

    Perhaps we are all over sensitive but
    Them’s the times we live in

    Compare with the similarly tortured way we try to find the right words for “black people” -
    that’s an even nastier verbal minefield,
    such that we have recently outlawed “black and minority ethnic people” as also being
    offensive. I forget what is the correct term of
    the moment

    Most diminutives for nationalities are pretty negative - if you think about Jap/Frog/Yank etc without having to even go to “P***” for Pakistanis.

    “Brit”, and “Aussie” are the only ones that doesn’t seem to have a negative slant, although don’t know what abbreviations other nations use for themselves. (I’d class Kiwi as a nickname rather than an abbreviation)

    I think there are parts of Ireland where ‘Brit’ isn’t tinged with respect and affection.
    Or, indeed, parts of your brain
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Police are under orders to step in if pro-Palestinian protesters climb war memorials today - with hundreds of thousands expected at more than 100 rallies across the UK
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12764819/Police-orders-step-pro-Palestinian-protesters-climb-war-memorials-today-hundreds-thousands-expected-100-rallies-UK.html

    A week is a long time in politics and also in policing.

    There are no pro-Palestinian protestors.

    They are anti-Israel protestors or for some anti-Jew protestors.
    You might be better using 'Jewish' than 'Jew'. It's less pejorative. Imagine you are talking about a doctor or a banker and then put your 'Jew' in front of it and you might get an idea of how unpleasant it sounds.
    The word "Jew" really isn't pejorative.
    It can be when used like that. On a related note, I'm half-convinced the term "jew hate" has only been used since I wondered on pb if the public understood the word antisemitism. No doubt mere coincidence but certainly it is not old enough to vote.
    Of course it can be used pejoratively. So can any number of other words - black, gay, Irish, man, woman, Tory, Socialist.

    But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies.
    In a phrase like "jew doctor", it is.
    I'm not sure quite what you are having trouble understanding in the comment "Of course it can be used pejoratively. ... But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies."

    The difference between using it as a noun and an adjective surely?

    Jew art
    Jewish art
    Art by a Jew

    Context is all of course but the first one could only be pejorative I think.
    Thank heaven someone here understands the difference between a noun and an adjective. Perhaps not all is lost.

    Obviously the word "Jew" is properly a noun. And yes, I'd agree its use as an adjective is normally pejorative (as well as ungrammatical). But to suggest it's pejorative when it's used as a noun is ridiculous.
    It can be pejorative even when used as a noun

    “Yes, he’s a Jew”

    “My lawyer is a Jew”

    “That painting is by a Jew”

    “Yes, and she’s a Jew”

    It is thanks to the many centuries of anti Semitism and it logically shouldn’t be the case, but it is a fact that even the simplest use of the noun “Jew” can sound grating and potentially offensive

    Perhaps we are all over sensitive but
    Them’s the times we live in

    Compare with the similarly tortured way we try to find the right words for “black people” -
    that’s an even nastier verbal minefield,
    such that we have recently outlawed “black and minority ethnic people” as also being
    offensive. I forget what is the correct term of
    the moment

    Most diminutives for nationalities are pretty negative - if you think about Jap/Frog/Yank etc without having to even go to “P***” for Pakistanis.

    “Brit”, and “Aussie” are the only ones that doesn’t seem to have a negative slant, although don’t know what abbreviations other nations use for themselves. (I’d class Kiwi as a nickname rather than an abbreviation)

    I think there are parts of Ireland where ‘Brit’ isn’t tinged with respect and affection.
    Or, indeed, parts of your brain
    Rhyming slang in there, chief.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    in Bradford, the amount of children born to Pakistani parents who are first or second cousins has dropped to 46%

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67422918
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,413

    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Police are under orders to step in if pro-Palestinian protesters climb war memorials today - with hundreds of thousands expected at more than 100 rallies across the UK
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12764819/Police-orders-step-pro-Palestinian-protesters-climb-war-memorials-today-hundreds-thousands-expected-100-rallies-UK.html

    A week is a long time in politics and also in policing.

    There are no pro-Palestinian protestors.

    They are anti-Israel protestors or for some anti-Jew protestors.
    You might be better using 'Jewish' than 'Jew'. It's less pejorative. Imagine you are talking about a doctor or a banker and then put your 'Jew' in front of it and you might get an idea of how unpleasant it sounds.
    The word "Jew" really isn't pejorative.
    It can be when used like that. On a related note, I'm half-convinced the term "jew hate" has only been used since I wondered on pb if the public understood the word antisemitism. No doubt mere coincidence but certainly it is not old enough to vote.
    Of course it can be used pejoratively. So can any number of other words - black, gay, Irish, man, woman, Tory, Socialist.

    But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies.
    In a phrase like "jew doctor", it is.
    I'm not sure quite what you are having trouble understanding in the comment "Of course it can be used pejoratively. ... But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies."

    The difference between using it as a noun and an adjective surely?

    Jew art
    Jewish art
    Art by a Jew

    Context is all of course but the first one could only be pejorative I think.
    Thank heaven someone here understands the difference between a noun and an adjective. Perhaps not all is lost.

    Obviously the word "Jew" is properly a noun. And yes, I'd agree its use as an adjective is normally pejorative (as well as ungrammatical). But to suggest it's pejorative when it's used as a noun is ridiculous.
    It can be pejorative even when used as a noun

    “Yes, he’s a Jew”

    “My lawyer is a Jew”

    “That painting is by a Jew”

    “Yes, and she’s a Jew”

    It is thanks to the many centuries of anti Semitism and it logically shouldn’t be the case, but it is a fact that even the simplest use of the noun “Jew” can sound grating and potentially offensive

    Perhaps we are all over sensitive but
    Them’s the times we live in

    Compare with the similarly tortured way we try to find the right words for “black people” -
    that’s an even nastier verbal minefield,
    such that we have recently outlawed “black and minority ethnic people” as also being
    offensive. I forget what is the correct term of
    the moment

    Most diminutives for nationalities are pretty negative - if you think about Jap/Frog/Yank etc without having to even go to “P***” for Pakistanis.

    “Brit”, and “Aussie” are the only ones that doesn’t seem to have a negative slant, although don’t know what abbreviations other nations use for themselves. (I’d class Kiwi as a nickname rather than an abbreviation)

    I think there are parts of Ireland where ‘Brit’ isn’t tinged with respect and affection.
    People need to get over that bad 1989 panto season in Kilkenny with the fragrant Miss Ekland. It wasn't her fault she had a wardrobe malfunction and revealed all to the Little Sisters of Mercy Christmas outing.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,908

    Idle thought on IHT - if Hunt were to combine a reduction with elimination (for future bequests) of the 7-year exemption, I think most of us would feel that was a fair deal. The current arrangement is of course more or less voluntary for people who know how it works, but it's unfair to families of people with less know-how and the luncky who drop dead prematurely. If any gift in the most recent 25 years was counted as part of the legacy, that would orevent most avoidance, though only gradually since you couldn't do it retrospectively.

    Double the threshold and get rid of special treatment for spouses (or civil partners) rather than discriminate against partners who never formalised their relationship.
    The Tories are supposed to be the party of marriage, just double the threshold for all but keep the spouses and civil partners exemption
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,263

    MattW said:

    All ethnic proper nouns now sound old-fashioned, if not offensive.

    Negro
    Jew
    Spaniard
    Chinaman (or “Chinese” as a noun).

    An Italian still works, I think, as does Finn, Swede, Dane, and Russian. Pole is not appropriate. Scot also sounds patronising.

    Sad times.

    Are there not two separate categories here - ethnic and national?

    To my ear, the national ones seem OK - Spaniard, Latvian, Pole (what's wrong there?), Russian, South African, Frenchman, Canadian, Englishman, Scot, Argentinian etc.

    I'd generally agree on the ethnic proper nouns - unless perhaps they are used for identity. Is Hispanic unacceptable, in particular?
    There’s something maybe in the mono-syllable that is vaguely offensive,

    “A Polish man” sounds better “a Pole”.

    And I think the ones ending -man sound old fashioned. Even Englishman.
    An Englishman sounds noble, and profound tho. Almost boastful. Probably more than any other epithet.

    I AM AN ENGLISHMAN

    It sounds vainglorious, is that just Gilbert and Sullivan? Or maybe a hangover from Empire

    If I want to put some uppity foreigner or colonial in his place - and let’s face it, they all deserve it from time to time - and the subject moves on to race and identity, i just quietly say, “I am an Englishman” and then a quiet, natural respect descends, if only for a moment, as people acknolwedge the hierarchy, and my position at the apex

    It’s not a big thing. But sometimes it has to be done
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,011
    We encountered the march of Hamas apologists and their fellow travellers in Leeds today. One young woman with a megaphone, but without a sense of irony, calling for an end to the killing of babies and children. She then, naturally enough, mentioned the river and the sea.

    Later on a bunch were sitting in a circle on the station concourse, making a racket and getting in people's way.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,908

    Idle thought on IHT - if Hunt were to combine a reduction with elimination (for future bequests) of the 7-year exemption, I think most of us would feel that was a fair deal. The current arrangement is of course more or less voluntary for people who know how it works, but it's unfair to families of people with less know-how and the luncky who drop dead prematurely. If any gift in the most recent 25 years was counted as part of the legacy, that would orevent most avoidance, though only gradually since you couldn't do it retrospectively.

    He won't as that would be hugely unpopular, especially in the bluewell and home counties where lots of parents use the 7 year exemption to help their children with deposits to buy a property
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,984

    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Police are under orders to step in if pro-Palestinian protesters climb war memorials today - with hundreds of thousands expected at more than 100 rallies across the UK
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12764819/Police-orders-step-pro-Palestinian-protesters-climb-war-memorials-today-hundreds-thousands-expected-100-rallies-UK.html

    A week is a long time in politics and also in policing.

    There are no pro-Palestinian protestors.

    They are anti-Israel protestors or for some anti-Jew protestors.
    You might be better using 'Jewish' than 'Jew'. It's less pejorative. Imagine you are talking about a doctor or a banker and then put your 'Jew' in front of it and you might get an idea of how unpleasant it sounds.
    The word "Jew" really isn't pejorative.
    It can be when used like that. On a related note, I'm half-convinced the term "jew hate" has only been used since I wondered on pb if the public understood the word antisemitism. No doubt mere coincidence but certainly it is not old enough to vote.
    Of course it can be used pejoratively. So can any number of other words - black, gay, Irish, man, woman, Tory, Socialist.

    But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies.
    In a phrase like "jew doctor", it is.
    I'm not sure quite what you are having trouble understanding in the comment "Of course it can be used pejoratively. ... But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies."

    The difference between using it as a noun and an adjective surely?

    Jew art
    Jewish art
    Art by a Jew

    Context is all of course but the first one could only be pejorative I think.
    Thank heaven someone here understands the difference between a noun and an adjective. Perhaps not all is lost.

    Obviously the word "Jew" is properly a noun. And yes, I'd agree its use as an adjective is normally pejorative (as well as ungrammatical). But to suggest it's pejorative when it's used as a noun is ridiculous.
    It can be pejorative even when used as a noun

    “Yes, he’s a Jew”

    “My lawyer is a Jew”

    “That painting is by a Jew”

    “Yes, and she’s a Jew”

    It is thanks to the many centuries of anti Semitism and it logically shouldn’t be the case, but it is a fact that even the simplest use of the noun “Jew” can sound grating and potentially offensive

    Perhaps we are all over sensitive but
    Them’s the times we live in

    Compare with the similarly tortured way we try to find the right words for “black people” -
    that’s an even nastier verbal minefield,
    such that we have recently outlawed “black and minority ethnic people” as also being
    offensive. I forget what is the correct term of
    the moment

    Most diminutives for nationalities are pretty negative - if you think about Jap/Frog/Yank etc without having to even go to “P***” for Pakistanis.

    “Brit”, and “Aussie” are the only ones that doesn’t seem to have a negative slant, although don’t know what abbreviations other nations use for themselves. (I’d class Kiwi as a nickname rather than an abbreviation)

    I think there are parts of Ireland where ‘Brit’ isn’t tinged with respect and affection.
    There’s a different vocabulary for the Brit(ish):

    - Brits: people from Britain* actively doing things abroad
    - Britons: people from Britain having (usually bad) things done to them abroad, often involving being stuck due to natural disaster or airline bankruptcy
    - The British: the state / government of Britain doing active things (often bad) to other countries

    *UK

    Then of course there is Anglo Saxons, which are the other (non-Jewish) illuminati / people behind every global conspiracy.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,263
    Try to say “I am an Englishman” without sounding like you are boasting. It is impossible
  • HYUFD said:

    Idle thought on IHT - if Hunt were to combine a reduction with elimination (for future bequests) of the 7-year exemption, I think most of us would feel that was a fair deal. The current arrangement is of course more or less voluntary for people who know how it works, but it's unfair to families of people with less know-how and the luncky who drop dead prematurely. If any gift in the most recent 25 years was counted as part of the legacy, that would orevent most avoidance, though only gradually since you couldn't do it retrospectively.

    Double the threshold and get rid of special treatment for spouses (or civil partners) rather than discriminate against partners who never formalised their relationship.
    The Tories are supposed to be the party of marriage, just double the threshold for all but keep the spouses and civil partners exemption
    Wasn't it Ken Clarke who said he did not get married for a tax exemption?
  • MattW said:

    All ethnic proper nouns now sound old-fashioned, if not offensive.

    Negro
    Jew
    Spaniard
    Chinaman (or “Chinese” as a noun).

    An Italian still works, I think, as does Finn, Swede, Dane, and Russian. Pole is not appropriate. Scot also sounds patronising.

    Sad times.

    Are there not two separate categories here - ethnic and national?

    To my ear, the national ones seem OK - Spaniard, Latvian, Pole (what's wrong there?), Russian, South African, Frenchman, Canadian, Englishman, Scot, Argentinian etc.

    I'd generally agree on the ethnic proper nouns - unless perhaps they are used for identity. Is Hispanic unacceptable, in particular?
    Hispanic is especially problematic because it defines people by the language they speak above all else. In the USA it encompasses quite a range of ethnicities and communities with very little in common, not least because Spanish became the common language of both conquerors and conquered.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,579

    MattW said:

    All ethnic proper nouns now sound old-fashioned, if not offensive.

    Negro
    Jew
    Spaniard
    Chinaman (or “Chinese” as a noun).

    An Italian still works, I think, as does Finn, Swede, Dane, and Russian. Pole is not appropriate. Scot also sounds patronising.

    Sad times.

    Are there not two separate categories here - ethnic and national?

    To my ear, the national ones seem OK - Spaniard, Latvian, Pole (what's wrong there?), Russian, South African, Frenchman, Canadian, Englishman, Scot, Argentinian etc.

    I'd generally agree on the ethnic proper nouns - unless perhaps they are used for identity. Is Hispanic unacceptable, in particular?
    There’s something maybe in the mono-syllable that is vaguely offensive,

    “A Polish man” sounds better “a Pole”.

    And I think the ones ending -man sound old fashioned. Even Englishman.
    Also Jewess and Negress, which faded long before. The offensive implication being that a different race was almost like a different species, I suppose.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,572
    Leon said:

    BLUE PLANKTON is not a racial slur

    The owner of this frankly amazing hotel told me that if you go in the sea at night and paddle about, you stir up bio-luminescent plankton, like a trillion sapphire fireflies have been hiding under the waves - whirls and whorls of blue and silver sparkles

    And he’s right, Enchanting. Forty years of travel and that’s the first time I have encountered BLUE PLANKTON

    https://www.explore.com/1184218/the-best-way-to-see-the-unbelievable-underwater-glowing-plankton-in-koh-rong-cambodia/

    I can beat that! I've seen bioluminescent plankton whilst on watch sitting on the bowsprit of a tall ship; the water immediately in front of the bow glowed this weird but mesmerising blue for about an hour.

    Though it was the Irish Sea, and not some tropical 'paradise'...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,818
    HYUFD said:

    Idle thought on IHT - if Hunt were to combine a reduction with elimination (for future bequests) of the 7-year exemption, I think most of us would feel that was a fair deal. The current arrangement is of course more or less voluntary for people who know how it works, but it's unfair to families of people with less know-how and the luncky who drop dead prematurely. If any gift in the most recent 25 years was counted as part of the legacy, that would orevent most avoidance, though only gradually since you couldn't do it retrospectively.

    He won't as that would be hugely unpopular, especially in the bluewell and home counties where lots of parents use the 7 year exemption to help their children with deposits to buy a property
    You mean, children have to wait for the 7 years before their parents die? Fat lot of good that is.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,263
    isam said:

    in Bradford, the amount of children born to Pakistani parents who are first or second cousins has dropped to 46%

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67422918

    An extraordinary paragraph in that report

    “The original research also demonstrated that cousin marriage roughly doubled the risk of birth defects, though they remained rare, affecting 6% of children born to cousins.“

    Rare?? 6%? More than one in twenty??

    What kind of imbecile marries a cousin knowing it increases the chance of a baby with a birth defect to more than one in twenty? Probably one born of a cousin marriage, I guess

    Anyways, thank Allah it is slowly fading away. A hideous, stupid tradition
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    Leon said:

    isam said:

    in Bradford, the amount of children born to Pakistani parents who are first or second cousins has dropped to 46%

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67422918

    An extraordinary paragraph in that report

    “The original research also demonstrated that cousin marriage roughly doubled the risk of birth defects, though they remained rare, affecting 6% of children born to cousins.“

    Rare?? 6%? More than one in twenty??

    What kind of imbecile marries a cousin knowing it increases the chance of a baby with a birth defect to more than one in twenty? Probably one born of a cousin marriage, I guess

    Anyways, thank Allah it is slowly fading away. A hideous, stupid tradition
    Can we make jokes about the Cornish here :smile:
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Police are under orders to step in if pro-Palestinian protesters climb war memorials today - with hundreds of thousands expected at more than 100 rallies across the UK
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12764819/Police-orders-step-pro-Palestinian-protesters-climb-war-memorials-today-hundreds-thousands-expected-100-rallies-UK.html

    A week is a long time in politics and also in policing.

    There are no pro-Palestinian protestors.

    They are anti-Israel protestors or for some anti-Jew protestors.
    You might be better using 'Jewish' than 'Jew'. It's less pejorative. Imagine you are talking about a doctor or a banker and then put your 'Jew' in front of it and you might get an idea of how unpleasant it sounds.
    The word "Jew" really isn't pejorative.
    It can be when used like that. On a related note, I'm half-convinced the term "jew hate" has only been used since I wondered on pb if the public understood the word antisemitism. No doubt mere coincidence but certainly it is not old enough to vote.
    Of course it can be used pejoratively. So can any number of other words - black, gay, Irish, man, woman, Tory, Socialist.

    But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies.
    In a phrase like "jew doctor", it is.
    I'm not sure quite what you are having trouble understanding in the comment "Of course it can be used pejoratively. ... But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies."

    The difference between using it as a noun and an adjective surely?

    Jew art
    Jewish art
    Art by a Jew

    Context is all of course but the first one could only be pejorative I think.
    Thank heaven someone here understands the difference between a noun and an adjective. Perhaps not all is lost.

    Obviously the word "Jew" is properly a noun. And yes, I'd agree its use as an adjective is normally pejorative (as well as ungrammatical). But to suggest it's pejorative when it's used as a noun is ridiculous.
    It can be pejorative even when used as a noun

    “Yes, he’s a Jew”

    “My lawyer is a Jew”

    “That painting is by a Jew”

    “Yes, and she’s a Jew”

    It is thanks to the many centuries of anti Semitism and it logically shouldn’t be the case, but it is a fact that even the simplest use of the noun “Jew” can sound grating and potentially offensive

    Perhaps we are all over sensitive but
    Them’s the times we live in

    Compare with the similarly tortured way we try to find the right words for “black people” -
    that’s an even nastier verbal minefield,
    such that we have recently outlawed “black and minority ethnic people” as also being
    offensive. I forget what is the correct term of
    the moment

    Most diminutives for nationalities are pretty negative - if you think about Jap/Frog/Yank etc without having to even go to “P***” for Pakistanis.

    “Brit”, and “Aussie” are the only ones that doesn’t seem to have a negative slant, although don’t know what abbreviations other nations use for themselves. (I’d class Kiwi as a nickname rather than an abbreviation)

    I think there are parts of Ireland where ‘Brit’ isn’t tinged with respect and affection.
    There’s a different vocabulary for the Brit(ish):

    - Brits: people from Britain* actively doing things abroad
    - Britons: people from Britain having (usually bad) things done to them abroad, often involving being stuck due to natural disaster or airline bankruptcy
    - The British: the state / government of Britain doing active things (often bad) to other countries

    *UK

    Then of course there is Anglo Saxons, which are the other (non-Jewish) illuminati / people behind every global conspiracy.
    This reminds me of the very odd “British Israelites”, who maintain that the British are the ethnic descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel.

    Popular in the 1870s, and lingering on in various mad quarters.

    Until very recently, the movement maintained a small bookshop on Sandringham Road, In Auckland.
    Alongside Union Jacks, there was fixed to the window a genealogical chart showing the purported descent of Elizabeth II from Abraham.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,631

    I find French literature, and therefore on presumes the French mind, is quite attentive to ethnicity.

    An English book might say, “A man walked down the street, grey-haired and stooped, with a long beard. He wore a yarmulke…etc”.

    A French book will say, “An old Jew walked down the street, grey-haired and stooped”.

    During the Rugby World Cup, while the All Backs were doing the Haka in the match against Ireland, the French broadcasters seemed unduly fixated on Ireland's Bundee Aki. It felt a bit odd.
    I think the French are just more attuned to race, somehow. The Brits are more attuned to class.

    I find it v interesting that Sunak, Braverman, and Patel are all the children of East African-born Indian disaspora, but it’s hardly ever remarked upon and I think most people don’t even really think about Sunak’s ethnicity.

    It’s somehow less relevant than the fact he is “posh”.
    Though paradoxically, race does not officially exist in France, with statistics on ethnicity and religion deliberately not collected.

    So for example there are no statistics on the religions of French convicts for example.
  • TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Police are under orders to step in if pro-Palestinian protesters climb war memorials today - with hundreds of thousands expected at more than 100 rallies across the UK
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12764819/Police-orders-step-pro-Palestinian-protesters-climb-war-memorials-today-hundreds-thousands-expected-100-rallies-UK.html

    A week is a long time in politics and also in policing.

    There are no pro-Palestinian protestors.

    They are anti-Israel protestors or for some anti-Jew protestors.
    You might be better using 'Jewish' than 'Jew'. It's less pejorative. Imagine you are talking about a doctor or a banker and then put your 'Jew' in front of it and you might get an idea of how unpleasant it sounds.
    The word "Jew" really isn't pejorative.
    It can be when used like that. On a related note, I'm half-convinced the term "jew hate" has only been used since I wondered on pb if the public understood the word antisemitism. No doubt mere coincidence but certainly it is not old enough to vote.
    Of course it can be used pejoratively. So can any number of other words - black, gay, Irish, man, woman, Tory, Socialist.

    But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies.
    In a phrase like "jew doctor", it is.
    I'm not sure quite what you are having trouble understanding in the comment "Of course it can be used pejoratively. ... But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies."

    The difference between using it as a noun and an adjective surely?

    Jew art
    Jewish art
    Art by a Jew

    Context is all of course but the first one could only be pejorative I think.
    Thank heaven someone here understands the difference between a noun and an adjective. Perhaps not all is lost.

    Obviously the word "Jew" is properly a noun. And yes, I'd agree its use as an adjective is normally pejorative (as well as ungrammatical). But to suggest it's pejorative when it's used as a noun is ridiculous.
    It can be pejorative even when used as a noun

    “Yes, he’s a Jew”

    “My lawyer is a Jew”

    “That painting is by a Jew”

    “Yes, and she’s a Jew”

    It is thanks to the many centuries of anti Semitism and it logically shouldn’t be the case, but it is a fact that even the simplest use of the noun “Jew” can sound grating and potentially offensive

    Perhaps we are all over sensitive but
    Them’s the times we live in

    Compare with the similarly tortured way we try to find the right words for “black people” -
    that’s an even nastier verbal minefield,
    such that we have recently outlawed “black and minority ethnic people” as also being
    offensive. I forget what is the correct term of
    the moment

    Most diminutives for nationalities are pretty negative - if you think about Jap/Frog/Yank etc without having to even go to “P***” for Pakistanis.

    “Brit”, and “Aussie” are the only ones that doesn’t seem to have a negative slant, although don’t know what abbreviations other nations use for themselves. (I’d class Kiwi as a nickname rather than an abbreviation)

    I think there are parts of Ireland where ‘Brit’ isn’t tinged with respect and affection.
    There’s a different vocabulary for the Brit(ish):

    - Brits: people from Britain* actively doing things abroad
    - Britons: people from Britain having (usually bad) things done to them abroad, often involving being stuck due to natural disaster or airline bankruptcy
    - The British: the state / government of Britain doing active things (often bad) to other countries

    *UK

    Then of course there is Anglo Saxons, which are the other (non-Jewish) illuminati / people behind every global conspiracy.
    Although every once in a while Anglo Saxons experience a surge of Celtic revivalism and start to imagine themselves on Arthur's side.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,263

    Leon said:

    BLUE PLANKTON is not a racial slur

    The owner of this frankly amazing hotel told me that if you go in the sea at night and paddle about, you stir up bio-luminescent plankton, like a trillion sapphire fireflies have been hiding under the waves - whirls and whorls of blue and silver sparkles

    And he’s right, Enchanting. Forty years of travel and that’s the first time I have encountered BLUE PLANKTON

    https://www.explore.com/1184218/the-best-way-to-see-the-unbelievable-underwater-glowing-plankton-in-koh-rong-cambodia/

    I can beat that! I've seen bioluminescent plankton whilst on watch sitting on the bowsprit of a tall ship; the water immediately in front of the bow glowed this weird but mesmerising blue for about an hour.

    Though it was the Irish Sea, and not some tropical 'paradise'...
    I’d love to see that

    I am surprised that in my endless decades of travel I’ve never seen it before. But also pleased the world can serve up new things, just like that. Brillog

    And yes it is rather fun in a warm tropical sea - the water is about 28C - you barely notice you are going in. Delightful
  • It will all be a bit of a damp squib if Hunt doesn't abolish IHT after all but does something sensible instead like putting up the personal allowance 😈
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,138

    Idle thought on IHT - if Hunt were to combine a reduction with elimination (for future bequests) of the 7-year exemption, I think most of us would feel that was a fair deal. The current arrangement is of course more or less voluntary for people who know how it works, but it's unfair to families of people with less know-how and the luncky who drop dead prematurely. If any gift in the most recent 25 years was counted as part of the legacy, that would orevent most avoidance, though only gradually since you couldn't do it retrospectively.

    I think there is one obvious problem with that idea - and that is that we all have to keep track of 25 years of past gifts. Surely it can be simpler than that?

    I'd suggest simply abolishing the 7 year exemption, and making legacies taxable by the recipient not the estate.

    You also don't mention the somewhat related obscure "regular gifts from income beyond that required for normal living" tax exemption, which is a loophole for the children of significantly wealthy people to receive tax free allowances / incomes. This is known as "Gifts from your surplus income". IMO that must just be ended.

    I think that there are some trends we should seek to encourage - for example to discourage individuals and couples to live in over large houses they no longer need. This is a society with pressure on housing availability, and we need to mitigate that. We should seek to encourage resolution of this years before the person dies, rather than have a family scrimmaging for years over a large, empty house. My family has experience of this, because my father refused point-blank to consider leaving the very large (500sqm) family house and we had sort-out after he died the things he should have sorted out first.

    As a broader background, imo the spectacle of a Government tinkering with IHT, whilst running a £100bn a year deficit and making life more difficult for poorer people to 'save money', is repugnant.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,058
    isam said:

    in Bradford, the amount of children born to Pakistani parents who are first or second cousins has dropped to 46%

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67422918

    Go Springfield!

    https://youtu.be/ULPwkpCy_-8?si=Ql7knDG-Sb4Sf2I6


  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,523
    MattW said:

    Idle thought on IHT - if Hunt were to combine a reduction with elimination (for future bequests) of the 7-year exemption, I think most of us would feel that was a fair deal. The current arrangement is of course more or less voluntary for people who know how it works, but it's unfair to families of people with less know-how and the luncky who drop dead prematurely. If any gift in the most recent 25 years was counted as part of the legacy, that would orevent most avoidance, though only gradually since you couldn't do it retrospectively.

    I think there is one obvious problem with that idea - and that is that we all have to keep track of 25 years of past gifts. Surely it can be simpler than that?

    I'd suggest simply abolishing the 7 year exemption, and making legacies taxable by the recipient not the estate.

    You also don't mention the somewhat related obscure "regular gifts from income beyond that required for normal living" tax exemption, which is a loophole for the children of significantly wealthy people to receive tax free allowances / incomes. This is known as "Gifts from your surplus income". IMO that must just be ended.

    I think that there are some trends we should seek to encourage - for example to discourage individuals and couples to live in over large houses they no longer need. This is a society with pressure on housing availability, and we need to mitigate that. We should seek to encourage resolution of this years before the person dies, rather than have a family scrimmaging for years over a large, empty house. My family has experience of this, because my father refused point-blank to consider leaving the very large (500sqm) family house and we had sort-out after he died the things he should have sorted out first.

    As a broader background, imo the spectacle of a Government tinkering with IHT, whilst running a £100bn a year deficit and making life more difficult for poorer people to 'save money', is repugnant.
    I'm persuaded on the first point, and agree with the others too. Thanks for the response.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,241

    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Police are under orders to step in if pro-Palestinian protesters climb war memorials today - with hundreds of thousands expected at more than 100 rallies across the UK
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12764819/Police-orders-step-pro-Palestinian-protesters-climb-war-memorials-today-hundreds-thousands-expected-100-rallies-UK.html

    A week is a long time in politics and also in policing.

    There are no pro-Palestinian protestors.

    They are anti-Israel protestors or for some anti-Jew protestors.
    You might be better using 'Jewish' than 'Jew'. It's less pejorative. Imagine you are talking about a doctor or a banker and then put your 'Jew' in front of it and you might get an idea of how unpleasant it sounds.
    The word "Jew" really isn't pejorative.
    It can be when used like that. On a related note, I'm half-convinced the term "jew hate" has only been used since I wondered on pb if the public understood the word antisemitism. No doubt mere coincidence but certainly it is not old enough to vote.
    Of course it can be used pejoratively. So can any number of other words - black, gay, Irish, man, woman, Tory, Socialist.

    But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies.
    In a phrase like "jew doctor", it is.
    I'm not sure quite what you are having trouble understanding in the comment "Of course it can be used pejoratively. ... But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies."

    The difference between using it as a noun and an adjective surely?

    Jew art
    Jewish art
    Art by a Jew

    Context is all of course but the first one could only be pejorative I think.
    Thank heaven someone here understands the difference between a noun and an adjective. Perhaps not all is lost.

    Obviously the word "Jew" is properly a noun. And yes, I'd agree its use as an adjective is normally pejorative (as well as ungrammatical). But to suggest it's pejorative when it's used as a noun is ridiculous.
    It can be pejorative even when used as a noun

    “Yes, he’s a Jew”

    “My lawyer is a Jew”

    “That painting is by a Jew”

    “Yes, and she’s a Jew”

    It is thanks to the many centuries of anti Semitism and it logically shouldn’t be the case, but it is a fact that even the simplest use of the noun “Jew” can sound grating and potentially offensive

    Perhaps we are all over sensitive but
    Them’s the times we live in

    Compare with the similarly tortured way we try to find the right words for “black people” -
    that’s an even nastier verbal minefield,
    such that we have recently outlawed “black and minority ethnic people” as also being
    offensive. I forget what is the correct term of
    the moment

    Most diminutives for nationalities are pretty negative - if you think about Jap/Frog/Yank etc without having to even go to “P***” for Pakistanis.

    “Brit”, and “Aussie” are the only ones that
    doesn’t seem to have a negative slant,
    although don’t know what abbreviations
    other nations use for themselves. (I’d class Kiwi as a nickname rather than an
    abbreviation)
    I think there are parts of Ireland wher

    ‘Brit’ isn’t tinged with respect and affection.
    That is true, although the Brits have adopted it themselves
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,011
    Leon said:

    isam said:

    in Bradford, the amount of children born to Pakistani parents who are first or second cousins has dropped to 46%

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67422918

    An extraordinary paragraph in that report

    “The original research also demonstrated that cousin marriage roughly doubled the risk of birth defects, though they remained rare, affecting 6% of children born to cousins.“

    Rare?? 6%? More than one in twenty??

    What kind of imbecile marries a cousin knowing it increases the chance of a baby with a birth defect to more than one in twenty? Probably one born of a cousin marriage, I guess

    Anyways, thank Allah it is slowly fading away. A hideous, stupid tradition
    Doctors are attracted to work in Bradford as they get to encounter a whole range of conditions that they wouldn't see in other parts of the country.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,908

    It will all be a bit of a damp squib if Hunt doesn't abolish IHT after all but does something sensible instead like putting up the personal allowance 😈

    Nobody is suggesting he will abolish IHT, at most just cut the rate from 40% to 20%.

    Maybe he will do something about the personal allowance too now inflation has fallen significantly
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,908
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Idle thought on IHT - if Hunt were to combine a reduction with elimination (for future bequests) of the 7-year exemption, I think most of us would feel that was a fair deal. The current arrangement is of course more or less voluntary for people who know how it works, but it's unfair to families of people with less know-how and the luncky who drop dead prematurely. If any gift in the most recent 25 years was counted as part of the legacy, that would orevent most avoidance, though only gradually since you couldn't do it retrospectively.

    He won't as that would be hugely unpopular, especially in the bluewell and home counties where lots of parents use the 7 year exemption to help their children with deposits to buy a property
    You mean, children have to wait for the 7 years before their parents die? Fat lot of good that is.
    Parents in their 50s and 60s giving money to children in their 30s to use as deposits to buy a property are unlikely to die within 7 years on average and therefore benefit from the exemption
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,908

    HYUFD said:

    Idle thought on IHT - if Hunt were to combine a reduction with elimination (for future bequests) of the 7-year exemption, I think most of us would feel that was a fair deal. The current arrangement is of course more or less voluntary for people who know how it works, but it's unfair to families of people with less know-how and the luncky who drop dead prematurely. If any gift in the most recent 25 years was counted as part of the legacy, that would orevent most avoidance, though only gradually since you couldn't do it retrospectively.

    Double the threshold and get rid of special treatment for spouses (or civil partners) rather than discriminate against partners who never formalised their relationship.
    The Tories are supposed to be the party of marriage, just double the threshold for all but keep the spouses and civil partners exemption
    Wasn't it Ken Clarke who said he did not get married for a tax exemption?
    Ken Clarke is a Liberal anyway far more than he is a Tory, he was even left of Blair
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,631
    HYUFD said:

    It will all be a bit of a damp squib if Hunt doesn't abolish IHT after all but does something sensible instead like putting up the personal allowance 😈

    Nobody is suggesting he will abolish IHT, at most just cut the rate from 40% to 20%.

    Maybe he will do something about the personal allowance too now inflation has fallen significantly
    Last year we had 5 years worth of stealth tax increase via fiscal drag in a single year.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,138

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Roger said:

    Police are under orders to step in if pro-Palestinian protesters climb war memorials today - with hundreds of thousands expected at more than 100 rallies across the UK
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12764819/Police-orders-step-pro-Palestinian-protesters-climb-war-memorials-today-hundreds-thousands-expected-100-rallies-UK.html

    A week is a long time in politics and also in policing.

    There are no pro-Palestinian protestors.

    They are anti-Israel protestors or for some anti-Jew protestors.
    You might be better using 'Jewish' than 'Jew'. It's less pejorative. Imagine you are talking about a doctor or a banker and then put your 'Jew' in front of it and you might get an idea of how unpleasant it sounds.
    The word "Jew" really isn't pejorative.
    It can be when used like that. On a related note, I'm half-convinced the term "jew hate" has only been used since I wondered on pb if the public understood the word antisemitism. No doubt mere coincidence but certainly it is not old enough to vote.
    Of course it can be used pejoratively. So can any number of other words - black, gay, Irish, man, woman, Tory, Socialist.

    But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies.
    In a phrase like "jew doctor", it is.
    I'm not sure quite what you are having trouble understanding in the comment "Of course it can be used pejoratively. ... But if you are saying it is pejorative in itself, for heaven's sake think about what that implies."

    The difference between using it as a noun and an adjective surely?

    Jew art
    Jewish art
    Art by a Jew

    Context is all of course but the first one could only be pejorative I think.
    Thank heaven someone here understands the difference between a noun and an adjective. Perhaps not all is lost.

    Obviously the word "Jew" is properly a noun. And yes, I'd agree its use as an adjective is normally pejorative (as well as ungrammatical). But to suggest it's pejorative when it's used as a noun is ridiculous.
    It can be pejorative even when used as a noun

    “Yes, he’s a Jew”

    “My lawyer is a Jew”

    “That painting is by a Jew”

    “Yes, and she’s a Jew”

    It is thanks to the many centuries of anti Semitism and it logically shouldn’t be the case, but it is a fact that even the simplest use of the noun “Jew” can sound grating and potentially offensive

    Perhaps we are all over sensitive but
    Them’s the times we live in

    Compare with the similarly tortured way we try to find the right words for “black people” -
    that’s an even nastier verbal minefield,
    such that we have recently outlawed “black and minority ethnic people” as also being
    offensive. I forget what is the correct term of
    the moment

    Most diminutives for nationalities are pretty negative - if you think about Jap/Frog/Yank etc without having to even go to “P***” for Pakistanis.

    “Brit”, and “Aussie” are the only ones that doesn’t seem to have a negative slant, although don’t know what abbreviations other nations use for themselves. (I’d class Kiwi as a nickname rather than an abbreviation)

    I think there are parts of Ireland where ‘Brit’ isn’t tinged with respect and affection.
    There’s a different vocabulary for the Brit(ish):

    - Brits: people from Britain* actively doing things abroad
    - Britons: people from Britain having (usually bad) things done to them abroad, often involving being stuck due to natural disaster or airline bankruptcy
    - The British: the state / government of Britain doing active things (often bad) to other countries

    *UK

    Then of course there is Anglo Saxons, which are the other (non-Jewish) illuminati / people behind every global conspiracy.
    This reminds me of the very odd “British Israelites”, who maintain that the British are the ethnic descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel.

    Popular in the 1870s, and lingering on in various mad quarters.

    Until very recently, the movement maintained a small bookshop on Sandringham Road, In Auckland.
    Alongside Union Jacks, there was fixed to the window a genealogical chart showing the purported descent of Elizabeth II from Abraham.
    An interesting eccentric movement, which has been strangely attractive to members of small fundamentalist protestant sects, and allowing them to claim a history that skirts dependence on the Roman Catholic church. A good example are some founders of the Elim Pentecostal church, founded in the UK in the 1920s/1930s.

    Also weirdly attractive to some aristocracy. I wonder if Roderick Spode was one?

    You say Auckland; these days their British Headquarters is ironically in Bishop Auckland.

    Currently there are 3000-5000, and they are called the British-Israel-World Federation.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British-Israel-World_Federation
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,631
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Idle thought on IHT - if Hunt were to combine a reduction with elimination (for future bequests) of the 7-year exemption, I think most of us would feel that was a fair deal. The current arrangement is of course more or less voluntary for people who know how it works, but it's unfair to families of people with less know-how and the luncky who drop dead prematurely. If any gift in the most recent 25 years was counted as part of the legacy, that would orevent most avoidance, though only gradually since you couldn't do it retrospectively.

    Double the threshold and get rid of special treatment for spouses (or civil partners) rather than discriminate against partners who never formalised their relationship.
    The Tories are supposed to be the party of marriage, just double the threshold for all but keep the spouses and civil partners exemption
    Wasn't it Ken Clarke who said he did not get married for a tax exemption?
    Ken Clarke is a Liberal anyway far more than he is a Tory, he was even left of Blair
    There's only one Tory in this village!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,263

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    in Bradford, the amount of children born to Pakistani parents who are first or second cousins has dropped to 46%

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67422918

    An extraordinary paragraph in that report

    “The original research also demonstrated that cousin marriage roughly doubled the risk of birth defects, though they remained rare, affecting 6% of children born to cousins.“

    Rare?? 6%? More than one in twenty??

    What kind of imbecile marries a cousin knowing it increases the chance of a baby with a birth defect to more than one in twenty? Probably one born of a cousin marriage, I guess

    Anyways, thank Allah it is slowly fading away. A hideous, stupid tradition
    Doctors are attracted to work in Bradford as they get to encounter a whole range of conditions that they wouldn't see in other parts of the country.
    it is just sad. DON’T MARRY YOUR COUSIN

    How hard is that? The British Royal Family have not, it must be said, set a brilliant example. But at least they’re not the Habsburgs

    I’ve seen various theories that claim the Christian religious bans on cousin marriage as a reason why Europe got ahead while other cultures - worldwide. - languished

    It makes kinda sense. Anyway let it end, ASAP

  • HYUFD said:

    Idle thought on IHT - if Hunt were to combine a reduction with elimination (for future bequests) of the 7-year exemption, I think most of us would feel that was a fair deal. The current arrangement is of course more or less voluntary for people who know how it works, but it's unfair to families of people with less know-how and the luncky who drop dead prematurely. If any gift in the most recent 25 years was counted as part of the legacy, that would orevent most avoidance, though only gradually since you couldn't do it retrospectively.

    Double the threshold and get rid of special treatment for spouses (or civil partners) rather than discriminate against partners who never formalised their relationship.
    The Tories are supposed to be the party of marriage, just double the threshold for all but keep the spouses and civil partners exemption
    God doesn't believe in marriage!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,070
    MattW said:

    Idle thought on IHT - if Hunt were to combine a reduction with elimination (for future bequests) of the 7-year exemption, I think most of us would feel that was a fair deal. The current arrangement is of course more or less voluntary for people who know how it works, but it's unfair to families of people with less know-how and the luncky who drop dead prematurely. If any gift in the most recent 25 years was counted as part of the legacy, that would orevent most avoidance, though only gradually since you couldn't do it retrospectively.

    ...for example to discourage individuals and couples to live in over large houses they no longer need...
    I understand the point, but there's no way you can do it humanely. People like living in their homes. It's their home.

  • NEW THREAD

  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,138

    MattW said:

    All ethnic proper nouns now sound old-fashioned, if not offensive.

    Negro
    Jew
    Spaniard
    Chinaman (or “Chinese” as a noun).

    An Italian still works, I think, as does Finn, Swede, Dane, and Russian. Pole is not appropriate. Scot also sounds patronising.

    Sad times.

    Are there not two separate categories here - ethnic and national?

    To my ear, the national ones seem OK - Spaniard, Latvian, Pole (what's wrong there?), Russian, South African, Frenchman, Canadian, Englishman, Scot, Argentinian etc.

    I'd generally agree on the ethnic proper nouns - unless perhaps they are used for identity. Is Hispanic unacceptable, in particular?
    There’s something maybe in the mono-syllable that is vaguely offensive,

    “A Polish man” sounds better “a Pole”.

    And I think the ones ending -man sound old fashioned. Even Englishman.
    We now have quite a large Polish community around here - to the extent that the two languages of login / instruction at the GP are English and Polish.

    Next time I'm there I'll ask what they do.
  • Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    It will all be a bit of a damp squib if Hunt doesn't abolish IHT after all but does something sensible instead like putting up the personal allowance 😈

    Nobody is suggesting he will abolish IHT, at most just cut the rate from 40% to 20%.

    Maybe he will do something about the personal allowance too now inflation has fallen significantly
    Last year we had 5 years worth of stealth tax increase via fiscal drag in a single year.
    Income tax is not a "stealth tax".
    The amount you pay is crystal clear on your payslip.
    True stealth taxes are VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty and tobacco duty, where you do not know how much of the price is tax.
  • Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Idle thought on IHT - if Hunt were to combine a reduction with elimination (for future bequests) of the 7-year exemption, I think most of us would feel that was a fair deal. The current arrangement is of course more or less voluntary for people who know how it works, but it's unfair to families of people with less know-how and the luncky who drop dead prematurely. If any gift in the most recent 25 years was counted as part of the legacy, that would orevent most avoidance, though only gradually since you couldn't do it retrospectively.

    Double the threshold and get rid of special treatment for spouses (or civil partners) rather than discriminate against partners who never formalised their relationship.
    The Tories are supposed to be the party of marriage, just double the threshold for all but keep the spouses and civil partners exemption
    Wasn't it Ken Clarke who said he did not get married for a tax exemption?
    Ken Clarke is a Liberal anyway far more than he is a Tory, he was even left of Blair
    There's only one Tory in this village!
    The polls are bad for the Conservatives, but not that bad.

    But if the Conservatives insist on defining themselves in way that Ken Clarke is an example of "not a Conservative", this is what happens.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,067
    .
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    An ad on the radio just now got me thinking about American cultural imports in the last decade. There have been many: the rate has definitely accelerated. To name just a few:

    - Black Friday (that’s what triggered the thought)
    - “Season” rather than series
    - the final, grinding Bakhmut-style victory of “ATM”
    - “Woke”
    - “Culture war”
    - “Incel”
    - “Passed” instead of died (or even passed away)
    - “STEM”
    - A whole plethora of baseball expressions, like “circle back”

    I could go on. During that time all we’ve managed in return is to give them “close of play”

    Nonsense. We’ve also given them dozens of football expressions, for starters

    Also “brilliant”, “wanker”, “posh” and multiple others. All making inroads

    We don’t notice because we’re not American and don’t realise they don’t have these expressions, and when you encounter them in the States you don’t realise they are imports

    That said, I do detest “Black Friday”, which is absolutely meaningless out of its Thanksgiving context, unlike, say, Halloween which is an original British export reimported, the same way we imported the Blues and gave it back to them in the 1960s
    I also get the impression that Americans are starting say 'film' more when they once would only have said 'movie'.
    Yep, the perceived poshness of British English means they import loads of words, as I say we just don’t notice

    It has the prestige of, say, French in British English in the 19th century, when the socially ambitious would litter their prose with French phrases

    I also I like to listen to foreigners talking their weird foreign languages, to catch the English imports. You can be listening to two people speaking Polish and they will suddenly say “oh my God” or “fucking hell” - then they go back to Polish or Punjabi or whatever
    I saw some small children playing football in Corfu once. Suddenly one of them yelled out 'Missed by a mile!' before reverting back to Greek.
    I remember watching Borgen over 10 years ago, where apparently there was no danish equivalent for '15 minutes of fame'.
    Nordic languages are so overloaded with Anglicisms they might as well speak English. Indeed there must be a decent chance they will, in two or three generations

    Relatedly, when I was kayaking this morning, I did it with a Khmer guide, and a nice young French couple. The Khmer guy obviously spoke English, albeit haltingly, the French guy had some as well - but, unusually, the French woman seemed to have no English at all. So he translated everything for her

    She looked embarrassed by her lack of English, she blushed a couple of times. It reminded me of how absurdly lucky we are to have the English language as the global language. It means we don’t have to worry about anything to do with language, it will all be in our language, it is probably bad for us and makes us lazy, nonetheless when people bang on about the evil of the British Empire, you should also say a quiet prayer of thanks that our belligerent ancestors made sure everyone speaks our tongue
    Luck has little to do with it. We worked bloody hard at taking over most of the world and making Johnny Foreigner speak the Queen's English through much of the nineteenth century.
    True. i was just trying to say it nicely

    Returning to Americanisms, I’ve been using the word “gas” for “petrol” for years. It’s just easier. And sounds better and juicier

    “Put some petrol in” sounds ridiculous to me, like you are seeking some obscure chemical for a complex mechanical issue

    “Fill it with gas” is superior. As is “gas station”.
    Quite.
    No one ever stepped on the petrol.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,067
    .
    Leon said:

    Try to say “I am an Englishman” without sounding like you are boasting. It is impossible

    TBF, you have that problem with a great many random phrases.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,908

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Idle thought on IHT - if Hunt were to combine a reduction with elimination (for future bequests) of the 7-year exemption, I think most of us would feel that was a fair deal. The current arrangement is of course more or less voluntary for people who know how it works, but it's unfair to families of people with less know-how and the luncky who drop dead prematurely. If any gift in the most recent 25 years was counted as part of the legacy, that would orevent most avoidance, though only gradually since you couldn't do it retrospectively.

    Double the threshold and get rid of special treatment for spouses (or civil partners) rather than discriminate against partners who never formalised their relationship.
    The Tories are supposed to be the party of marriage, just double the threshold for all but keep the spouses and civil partners exemption
    Wasn't it Ken Clarke who said he did not get married for a tax exemption?
    Ken Clarke is a Liberal anyway far more than he is a Tory, he was even left of Blair
    There's only one Tory in this village!
    The polls are bad for the Conservatives, but not that bad.

    But if the Conservatives insist on defining themselves in way that Ken Clarke is an example of "not a Conservative", this is what happens.
    Ken Clarke was of course part of the Cabinet which led the Tories to landslide defeat in 1997 and the biggest leakage from the Tories at the moment is to RefUK who are hardly Ken Clarke fans!
  • Mike, good wishes for your recovery"
This discussion has been closed.