So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
I take it she wasn't in Kansas any more?
Nein, das war sie nicht
Good,
That would be such a bore, man.
ISWYDT !!
Immortalised in a Sex Pistols song !
Go, ring the news everywhere.
Or if not, Jodl it.
If you were in a betting mood would he be a back or a Ley
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
I take it she wasn't in Kansas any more?
Nein, das war sie nicht
Good,
That would be such a bore, man.
ISWYDT !!
Immortalised in a Sex Pistols song !
Go, ring the news everywhere.
Or if not, Jodl it.
If you were in a betting mood would he be a back or a Ley
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
I take it she wasn't in Kansas any more?
Nein, das war sie nicht
Good,
That would be such a bore, man.
ISWYDT !!
Immortalised in a Sex Pistols song !
Go, ring the news everywhere.
Or if not, Jodl it.
If you were in a betting mood would he be a back or a Ley
Neither, for bets don't count for past events.
When something doenitz done.
That last attempted pun sank you.
An Admiral attempt though.
I don't have many options, that one was all I could Speer.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
I take it she wasn't in Kansas any more?
Nein, das war sie nicht
Good,
That would be such a bore, man.
ISWYDT !!
Immortalised in a Sex Pistols song !
Go, ring the news everywhere.
Or if not, Jodl it.
If you were in a betting mood would he be a back or a Ley
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
I take it she wasn't in Kansas any more?
Nein, das war sie nicht
Good,
That would be such a bore, man.
ISWYDT !!
Immortalised in a Sex Pistols song !
Go, ring the news everywhere.
Or if not, Jodl it.
If you were in a betting mood would he be a back or a Ley
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Burning carbon has been the bedrock of our prosperity since the industrial revolution. Solar may be relatively useful in tropical places but I haven't seen the evidence that it can be here. Are we going to import electricity from the Sahara? Decarbonising the European economy still looks pretty expensive to me.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
There’s a startup in the US trying to setup a modular direct solar-to-methane system.
No power electronics - raw DC from the panels into the methane generator. Just needs water - uses atmospheric CO2.
The idea is that it may be inefficient and yield low. But reduce cost/complexity enough and you just put thousands of the things out there…
Vaguely concerning, methane being created by back street chemists. It’s pretty noxious.
Rather funny if you meant the joke.
Of course methane is odourless. Household supply of gas needs a smelly additive to alert to leaks.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
Its on BBC Iplayer at present, though you have to look at the films a-Z to find it
I’ve just discovered IPlayer has the episodes of Foyles War and George Gently I’ve not got so I’ll watch them this week too.
I had a fairly interesting back-and-forth with gpt and claude this week about interesting and somewhat obscure UK 60s/70s/80s drama's in the politics/dystopian/thriller line. Mostly as a "Have I really watched them all???" line. But found some I'd never even heard of. So that was worth a small forest in GPU hours, right?
It's missing a whole lot of obscure stuff (and even some well known shows I specifically prodded it with - but both were getting 'a bit tired'). If anyone's looking for tat to look out for over the festive break :
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I think you're missing the point. Most people with an actual job wear a lanyard. They are literally the "lanyard wearing class". David Starkey patronising people who work says far more about him than about them.
He’s making a very pertinent point. It’s a mundane everyday item. But some (corporations and individuals) wish to embellish it with a virtue signalling point that “I may be wearing this lanyard and be one of millions wearing one also but by god I believe in transgender rights and so should you. Because I’m making your cappuccino”.
It’s not the lanyard itself. It’s the bollocks out on them. Is nuance a thing these days??
"lanyard-wearing classes" means one thing. "Rainbow lanyard w.c." means another. Prof. Dr. Starkey says the former. I parse his words accurately. They are an enunciation of contempt for the workers.
(For the record when my corporate lanyard wore out, I replaced it with a freebie I'd been given at a conference field trip. Nobody gave a shit. It was the badge/swipe card that counted.)
My base assumptions are, in the absence of other evidence:
Wearing a rainbow lanyard = picked it up from reception that day
Using pronouns on LinkedIn = somebody who has issues leaving any field blank on a form.
Given how thin lanyards are, I'm surprised anyone even notices the bloody things. The people who sniff them out are the equivalent of those who looked up the dirty words in Johnson' Dictionary so that they could complain about them.
I’m sure if one was adorned with “MAGA” you’d notice. And then complain.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
Good luck walking around most of the places I've worked without one.
I think the only place I've not need a pass are small firms less than 20 people where everyone knows each other..
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I wasn't being obtuse. I was pointing out that people who use the phrase "lanyard-wearing class" are independently wealthy, or WFH, and/or don't have to work for a living in offices. I was implying that their view of life is somewhat etiolated due their privileged position.
I've never quite understood the phrase. Does it just mean 'worker scum'? When I first saw it in an article I took it to mean 'People who had access to special offices, so needed ID', but then it seemed to morph into just.... worker scum?
I think it supposed to refer to the nebulous crowd of advisors, third parties etc who don't seem to actually work in various places, but wear their access to The Top as sign of their power.
That seems a little offensive to the people who have to wear them because otherwise they get sacked.
Now that I've typed that - it feels more like it should be a description of "the nebulous crowd who should all be sacked". Nice big QR code on their lanyard that takes you to a webpage at 'https://should-this-person-be-sacked.co.uk?a=Yes'.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I think you're missing the point. Most people with an actual job wear a lanyard. They are literally the "lanyard wearing class". David Starkey patronising people who work says far more about him than about them.
He’s making a very pertinent point. It’s a mundane everyday item. But some (corporations and individuals) wish to embellish it with a virtue signalling point that “I may be wearing this lanyard and be one of millions wearing one also but by god I believe in transgender rights and so should you. Because I’m making your cappuccino”.
It’s not the lanyard itself. It’s the bollocks out on them. Is nuance a thing these days??
"lanyard-wearing classes" means one thing. "Rainbow lanyard w.c." means another. Prof. Dr. Starkey says the former. I parse his words accurately. They are an enunciation of contempt for the workers.
(For the record when my corporate lanyard wore out, I replaced it with a freebie I'd been given at a conference field trip. Nobody gave a shit. It was the badge/swipe card that counted.)
My base assumptions are, in the absence of other evidence:
Wearing a rainbow lanyard = picked it up from reception that day
Using pronouns on LinkedIn = somebody who has issues leaving any field blank on a form.
Given how thin lanyards are, I'm surprised anyone even notices the bloody things. The people who sniff them out are the equivalent of those who looked up the dirty words in Johnson' Dictionary so that they could complain about them.
I’m sure if one was adorned with “MAGA” you’d notice. And then complain.
Party political. *Any* party political badge would be instantly suppressed. As a basic management principle.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
But it just shows how ignorant* the lovers of the phrase are. Just look at any bank, factory, data processing office ...
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Burning carbon has been the bedrock of our prosperity since the industrial revolution. Solar may be relatively useful in tropical places but I haven't seen the evidence that it can be here. Are we going to import electricity from the Sahara? Decarbonising the European economy still looks pretty expensive to me.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
There’s a startup in the US trying to setup a modular direct solar-to-methane system.
No power electronics - raw DC from the panels into the methane generator. Just needs water - uses atmospheric CO2.
The idea is that it may be inefficient and yield low. But reduce cost/complexity enough and you just put thousands of the things out there…
Vaguely concerning, methane being created by back street chemists. It’s pretty noxious.
Rather funny if you meant the joke.
Of course methane is odourless. Household supply of gas needs a smelly additive to alert to leaks.
Unlike my arse, which adds it's own
Er, you'd better go and see the doctor, unless you've had the North Sea modification. My odorification is traditional, from the colon.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
Good luck walking around most of the places I've worked without one.
I think the only place I've not need a pass are small firms less than 20 people where everyone knows each other..
Oh I agree. But most people don't have access to many offices. (Because they don't have lanyards!?). So Public sector is who they'll see wearing them. NHS. Their kid's school. Council officials. You know. Skivers and woke layabouts with no proper work and massive pensions.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I wasn't being obtuse. I was pointing out that people who use the phrase "lanyard-wearing class" are independently wealthy, or WFH, and/or don't have to work for a living in offices. I was implying that their view of life is somewhat etiolated due their privileged position.
I've never quite understood the phrase. Does it just mean 'worker scum'? When I first saw it in an article I took it to mean 'People who had access to special offices, so needed ID', but then it seemed to morph into just.... worker scum?
I think it supposed to refer to the nebulous crowd of advisors, third parties etc who don't seem to actually work in various places, but wear their access to The Top as sign of their power.
That seems a little offensive to the people who have to wear them because otherwise they get sacked.
Now that I've typed that - it feels more like it should be a description of "the nebulous crowd who should all be sacked". Nice big QR code on their lanyard that takes you to a webpage at 'https://should-this-person-be-sacked.co.uk?a=Yes'.
I was referring the third-rate, wannabe Alistair Campbells of this world.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I think you're missing the point. Most people with an actual job wear a lanyard. They are literally the "lanyard wearing class". David Starkey patronising people who work says far more about him than about them.
He’s making a very pertinent point. It’s a mundane everyday item. But some (corporations and individuals) wish to embellish it with a virtue signalling point that “I may be wearing this lanyard and be one of millions wearing one also but by god I believe in transgender rights and so should you. Because I’m making your cappuccino”.
It’s not the lanyard itself. It’s the bollocks out on them. Is nuance a thing these days??
"lanyard-wearing classes" means one thing. "Rainbow lanyard w.c." means another. Prof. Dr. Starkey says the former. I parse his words accurately. They are an enunciation of contempt for the workers.
(For the record when my corporate lanyard wore out, I replaced it with a freebie I'd been given at a conference field trip. Nobody gave a shit. It was the badge/swipe card that counted.)
My base assumptions are, in the absence of other evidence:
Wearing a rainbow lanyard = picked it up from reception that day
Using pronouns on LinkedIn = somebody who has issues leaving any field blank on a form.
Given how thin lanyards are, I'm surprised anyone even notices the bloody things. The people who sniff them out are the equivalent of those who looked up the dirty words in Johnson' Dictionary so that they could complain about them.
I’m sure if one was adorned with “MAGA” you’d notice. And then complain.
Party political. *Any* party political badge would be instantly suppressed. As a basic management principle.
It’s a concept. Or rather - an aspiration. Like “Free Palestine”. It’s not “party” political.
I’ve seen people replace their lanyard with a Palestinian coloured one. For work. These are the “lanyard wearing class(es).”
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
Good luck walking around most of the places I've worked without one.
I think the only place I've not need a pass are small firms less than 20 people where everyone knows each other..
Oh I agree. But most people don't have access to many offices. (Because they don't have lanyards!?). So Public sector is who they'll see wearing them. NHS. Their kid's school. Council officials. You know. Skivers and woke layabouts with no proper work and massive pensions.
Oh yes, the whingers about them only see them in banks. Er forget that, they all insist on online services and DGA shit for those who can't use them. So they only see them in Starbucks and the only ones they even notice are the ones that the youngsters wear. Which always, always upset the old farts. Whatever they are.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
Overthinking it. It's someone who has no concept of the modern workplace believing themselves to be very clever. Also those outraged by the existence of HR.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
Good luck walking around most of the places I've worked without one.
I think the only place I've not need a pass are small firms less than 20 people where everyone knows each other..
Oh I agree. But most people don't have access to many offices. (Because they don't have lanyards!?). So Public sector is who they'll see wearing them. NHS. Their kid's school. Council officials. You know. Skivers and woke layabouts with no proper work and massive pensions.
But also public servants who tend not to display sufficient deference. The kind of people who say that you can't just go there, you need to wait and no I don't know who you are so if you would please sign in here...
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
Good luck walking around most of the places I've worked without one.
I think the only place I've not need a pass are small firms less than 20 people where everyone knows each other..
Oh I agree. But most people don't have access to many offices. (Because they don't have lanyards!?). So Public sector is who they'll see wearing them. NHS. Their kid's school. Council officials. You know. Skivers and woke layabouts with no proper work and massive pensions.
But also public servants who tend not to display sufficient deference. The kind of people who say that you can't just go there, you need to wait and no I don't know who you are so if you would please sign in here...
When I was a School Governor with my photo on the wall by reception I still needed a pass to wander round the building and that was with an escort - because otherwise I would walk in and say hello to everyone by their first name...
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
But it just shows how ignorant* the lovers of the phrase are. Just look at any bank, factory, data processing office ...
*Or utterly inner London centric.
Not sure every factory requires them, indeed some factories I have been to they'd be classed as a breach of health and safety. No ties for the same reason, do not want to get caught in the machinery.
Its one of those things that varies dramatically, but in general where they're required they're ubiquitous and you don't really get a choice on the matter.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
But it just shows how ignorant* the lovers of the phrase are. Just look at any bank, factory, data processing office ...
*Or utterly inner London centric.
Not sure every factory requires them, indeed some factories I have been to they'd be classed as a breach of health and safety. No ties for the same reason, do not want to get caught in the machinery.
Its one of those things that varies dramatically, but in general where they're required they're ubiquitous and you don't really get a choice on the matter.
Fair enough. But in any case our lanyards had a weak link to avoid that very issue.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
Its on BBC Iplayer at present, though you have to look at the films a-Z to find it
I’ve just discovered IPlayer has the episodes of Foyles War and George Gently I’ve not got so I’ll watch them this week too.
I had a fairly interesting back-and-forth with gpt and claude this week about interesting and somewhat obscure UK 60s/70s/80s drama's in the politics/dystopian/thriller line. Mostly as a "Have I really watched them all???" line. But found some I'd never even heard of. So that was worth a small forest in GPU hours, right?
It's missing a whole lot of obscure stuff (and even some well known shows I specifically prodded it with - but both were getting 'a bit tired'). If anyone's looking for tat to look out for over the festive break :
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
Good luck walking around most of the places I've worked without one.
I think the only place I've not need a pass are small firms less than 20 people where everyone knows each other..
Oh I agree. But most people don't have access to many offices. (Because they don't have lanyards!?). So Public sector is who they'll see wearing them. NHS. Their kid's school. Council officials. You know. Skivers and woke layabouts with no proper work and massive pensions.
But also public servants who tend not to display sufficient deference. The kind of people who say that you can't just go there, you need to wait and no I don't know who you are so if you would please sign in here...
When I was a School Governor with my photo on the wall by reception I still needed a pass to wander round the building and that was with an escort - because otherwise I would walk in and say hello to everyone by their first name...
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
I think it's more nuanced than that. Take the university. Many buildings will require card access and so many people in all kinds of roles will wear their swipecard in a lanyard. They are not ALL of the lanyard class. Rather that refers to those in an organisation that are not involved in teaching or research but are in central services, like HR and and likely to be firm believers in the cult of diversity. They will have their pronouns in the email signature. They will receive the emails about whichever day it is and be grateful to have been informed. They will happily sign up for as many courses they can, the more they relate to DEI the better. They add little value to the university.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
Its on BBC Iplayer at present, though you have to look at the films a-Z to find it
I’ve just discovered IPlayer has the episodes of Foyles War and George Gently I’ve not got so I’ll watch them this week too.
I had a fairly interesting back-and-forth with gpt and claude this week about interesting and somewhat obscure UK 60s/70s/80s drama's in the politics/dystopian/thriller line. Mostly as a "Have I really watched them all???" line. But found some I'd never even heard of. So that was worth a small forest in GPU hours, right?
It's missing a whole lot of obscure stuff (and even some well known shows I specifically prodded it with - but both were getting 'a bit tired'). If anyone's looking for tat to look out for over the festive break :
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I think you're missing the point. Most people with an actual job wear a lanyard. They are literally the "lanyard wearing class". David Starkey patronising people who work says far more about him than about them.
He’s making a very pertinent point. It’s a mundane everyday item. But some (corporations and individuals) wish to embellish it with a virtue signalling point that “I may be wearing this lanyard and be one of millions wearing one also but by god I believe in transgender rights and so should you. Because I’m making your cappuccino”.
It’s not the lanyard itself. It’s the bollocks out on them. Is nuance a thing these days??
"lanyard-wearing classes" means one thing. "Rainbow lanyard w.c." means another. Prof. Dr. Starkey says the former. I parse his words accurately. They are an enunciation of contempt for the workers.
(For the record when my corporate lanyard wore out, I replaced it with a freebie I'd been given at a conference field trip. Nobody gave a shit. It was the badge/swipe card that counted.)
My base assumptions are, in the absence of other evidence:
Wearing a rainbow lanyard = picked it up from reception that day
Using pronouns on LinkedIn = somebody who has issues leaving any field blank on a form.
Given how thin lanyards are, I'm surprised anyone even notices the bloody things. The people who sniff them out are the equivalent of those who looked up the dirty words in Johnson' Dictionary so that they could complain about them.
I’m sure if one was adorned with “MAGA” you’d notice. And then complain.
Party political. *Any* party political badge would be instantly suppressed. As a basic management principle.
It’s a concept. Or rather - an aspiration. Like “Free Palestine”. It’s not “party” political.
I’ve seen people replace their lanyard with a Palestinian coloured one. For work. These are the “lanyard wearing class(es).”
This is a Cambridge academic, who uses language with precision. He says, X, he means X, he can expect to be read as meaning X.
Scott Bessent says the reason beef prices are so high is because immigrants from South America are bringing their cattle with them as they come here and they are infected with diseases. https://x.com/KellyScaletta/status/1990060260032483563
I realise Trump is likely senile, but the rest of his cabinet seem well on the way too.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
But it just shows how ignorant* the lovers of the phrase are. Just look at any bank, factory, data processing office ...
*Or utterly inner London centric.
Not sure every factory requires them, indeed some factories I have been to they'd be classed as a breach of health and safety. No ties for the same reason, do not want to get caught in the machinery.
Its one of those things that varies dramatically, but in general where they're required they're ubiquitous and you don't really get a choice on the matter.
Fair enough. But in any case our lanyards had a weak link to avoid that very issue.
The police wear clip on ties for this reason (or they used to, sobs).
At some worksites, no jewellery, mobile phones/radios on cords (so when you drop it off the scaffold you don't kill someone below), reverse parking and.... 10mph limits.
I think lanyard theory comes from some tiny right-wing think tank who only ever sees them on public sector workers and hasn't realised that anyone working in financial services outside a boutique also has to wear them.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
But it just shows how ignorant* the lovers of the phrase are. Just look at any bank, factory, data processing office ...
*Or utterly inner London centric.
Not sure every factory requires them, indeed some factories I have been to they'd be classed as a breach of health and safety. No ties for the same reason, do not want to get caught in the machinery.
Its one of those things that varies dramatically, but in general where they're required they're ubiquitous and you don't really get a choice on the matter.
You're not normally required to wear a lanyard but you're required to wear a badge at all times, and at the places I worked at, you were required to take it off the moment you left the premises. The lanyard is the convenient badge holder.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
Its on BBC Iplayer at present, though you have to look at the films a-Z to find it
I’ve just discovered IPlayer has the episodes of Foyles War and George Gently I’ve not got so I’ll watch them this week too.
I had a fairly interesting back-and-forth with gpt and claude this week about interesting and somewhat obscure UK 60s/70s/80s drama's in the politics/dystopian/thriller line. Mostly as a "Have I really watched them all???" line. But found some I'd never even heard of. So that was worth a small forest in GPU hours, right?
It's missing a whole lot of obscure stuff (and even some well known shows I specifically prodded it with - but both were getting 'a bit tired'). If anyone's looking for tat to look out for over the festive break :
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I think you're missing the point. Most people with an actual job wear a lanyard. They are literally the "lanyard wearing class". David Starkey patronising people who work says far more about him than about them.
He’s making a very pertinent point. It’s a mundane everyday item. But some (corporations and individuals) wish to embellish it with a virtue signalling point that “I may be wearing this lanyard and be one of millions wearing one also but by god I believe in transgender rights and so should you. Because I’m making your cappuccino”.
It’s not the lanyard itself. It’s the bollocks out on them. Is nuance a thing these days??
"lanyard-wearing classes" means one thing. "Rainbow lanyard w.c." means another. Prof. Dr. Starkey says the former. I parse his words accurately. They are an enunciation of contempt for the workers.
(For the record when my corporate lanyard wore out, I replaced it with a freebie I'd been given at a conference field trip. Nobody gave a shit. It was the badge/swipe card that counted.)
My base assumptions are, in the absence of other evidence:
Wearing a rainbow lanyard = picked it up from reception that day
Using pronouns on LinkedIn = somebody who has issues leaving any field blank on a form.
Given how thin lanyards are, I'm surprised anyone even notices the bloody things. The people who sniff them out are the equivalent of those who looked up the dirty words in Johnson' Dictionary so that they could complain about them.
I’m sure if one was adorned with “MAGA” you’d notice. And then complain.
Party political. *Any* party political badge would be instantly suppressed. As a basic management principle.
It’s a concept. Or rather - an aspiration. Like “Free Palestine”. It’s not “party” political.
I’ve seen people replace their lanyard with a Palestinian coloured one. For work. These are the “lanyard wearing class(es).”
This is a Cambridge academic, who uses language with precision. He says, X, he means X, he can expect to be read as meaning X.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
I think it's more nuanced than that. Take the university. Many buildings will require card access and so many people in all kinds of roles will wear their swipecard in a lanyard. They are not ALL of the lanyard class. Rather that refers to those in an organisation that are not involved in teaching or research but are in central services, like HR and and likely to be firm believers in the cult of diversity. They will have their pronouns in the email signature. They will receive the emails about whichever day it is and be grateful to have been informed. They will happily sign up for as many courses they can, the more they relate to DEI the better. They add little value to the university.
In my experience the HR people are neded to keep the academics under control. One academic ignored the employment legalities of a relative of mine - just for convenience: nothing wrong with her work. Things were beginning to escalate when I learned about it and I insisted that my relative talk to HR, whom the academic hadn't involved. Instant intervention and what could have been a career-disrupting tribunal (on both sides) was averted.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I think you're missing the point. Most people with an actual job wear a lanyard. They are literally the "lanyard wearing class". David Starkey patronising people who work says far more about him than about them.
He’s making a very pertinent point. It’s a mundane everyday item. But some (corporations and individuals) wish to embellish it with a virtue signalling point that “I may be wearing this lanyard and be one of millions wearing one also but by god I believe in transgender rights and so should you. Because I’m making your cappuccino”.
It’s not the lanyard itself. It’s the bollocks out on them. Is nuance a thing these days??
"lanyard-wearing classes" means one thing. "Rainbow lanyard w.c." means another. Prof. Dr. Starkey says the former. I parse his words accurately. They are an enunciation of contempt for the workers.
(For the record when my corporate lanyard wore out, I replaced it with a freebie I'd been given at a conference field trip. Nobody gave a shit. It was the badge/swipe card that counted.)
My base assumptions are, in the absence of other evidence:
Wearing a rainbow lanyard = picked it up from reception that day
Using pronouns on LinkedIn = somebody who has issues leaving any field blank on a form.
Given how thin lanyards are, I'm surprised anyone even notices the bloody things. The people who sniff them out are the equivalent of those who looked up the dirty words in Johnson' Dictionary so that they could complain about them.
I’m sure if one was adorned with “MAGA” you’d notice. And then complain.
Party political. *Any* party political badge would be instantly suppressed. As a basic management principle.
It’s a concept. Or rather - an aspiration. Like “Free Palestine”. It’s not “party” political.
I’ve seen people replace their lanyard with a Palestinian coloured one. For work. These are the “lanyard wearing class(es).”
This is a Cambridge academic, who uses language with precision. He says, X, he means X, he can expect to be read as meaning X.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
But it just shows how ignorant* the lovers of the phrase are. Just look at any bank, factory, data processing office ...
*Or utterly inner London centric.
Not sure every factory requires them, indeed some factories I have been to they'd be classed as a breach of health and safety. No ties for the same reason, do not want to get caught in the machinery.
Its one of those things that varies dramatically, but in general where they're required they're ubiquitous and you don't really get a choice on the matter.
Fair enough. But in any case our lanyards had a weak link to avoid that very issue.
The police wear clip on ties for this reason (or they used to, sobs).
At some worksites, no jewellery, mobile phones/radios on cords (so when you drop it off the scaffold you don't kill someone below), reverse parking and.... 10mph limits.
I think lanyard theory comes from some tiny right-wing think tank who only ever sees them on public sector workers and hasn't realised that anyone working in financial services outside a boutique also has to wear them.
Literally any office with anything vaguely confidential is going to work on we want to know exactly who is here and that everyone here has the right to be here...
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Oh come on. Stop being so obtuse - it’s perfectly clear what he’s referring to. There’s nothing wrong with a lanyard per se. It’s a functional item to hold a banal item - security pass, name badge. Whatever. That’s not the point. And you know it.
They’re now used to virtue signal “causes”. Go into any Pret for example. It’s used to signal that somehow my tuna melt is being administered in a gay (or pick a cause) friendly manner. (Interestingly in my local City one the only staff not virtue signalling this bullshit via lanyard are the Muslim staff).
Wear a lanyard. That’s great. Don’t wear a lanyard proclaiming whatever cause you think needs to be displayed on a lanyard.
I think you're missing the point. Most people with an actual job wear a lanyard. They are literally the "lanyard wearing class". David Starkey patronising people who work says far more about him than about them.
He’s making a very pertinent point. It’s a mundane everyday item. But some (corporations and individuals) wish to embellish it with a virtue signalling point that “I may be wearing this lanyard and be one of millions wearing one also but by god I believe in transgender rights and so should you. Because I’m making your cappuccino”.
It’s not the lanyard itself. It’s the bollocks out on them. Is nuance a thing these days??
"lanyard-wearing classes" means one thing. "Rainbow lanyard w.c." means another. Prof. Dr. Starkey says the former. I parse his words accurately. They are an enunciation of contempt for the workers.
(For the record when my corporate lanyard wore out, I replaced it with a freebie I'd been given at a conference field trip. Nobody gave a shit. It was the badge/swipe card that counted.)
My base assumptions are, in the absence of other evidence:
Wearing a rainbow lanyard = picked it up from reception that day
Using pronouns on LinkedIn = somebody who has issues leaving any field blank on a form.
Given how thin lanyards are, I'm surprised anyone even notices the bloody things. The people who sniff them out are the equivalent of those who looked up the dirty words in Johnson' Dictionary so that they could complain about them.
I’m sure if one was adorned with “MAGA” you’d notice. And then complain.
Party political. *Any* party political badge would be instantly suppressed. As a basic management principle.
It’s a concept. Or rather - an aspiration. Like “Free Palestine”. It’s not “party” political.
I’ve seen people replace their lanyard with a Palestinian coloured one. For work. These are the “lanyard wearing class(es).”
This is a Cambridge academic, who uses language with precision. He says, X, he means X, he can expect to be read as meaning X.
Not the XYY Man, then ?
"We've 25 prisoners in this facility. All double-Y chromos. All thieves, rapists, murderers, child-molesters... All scum. Just because they have taken on religion doesn't make them any less dangerous. I try not to offend their convictions. I don't want to upset the order. I don't want ripples in the water. And I don't want a woman walking around, giving them ideas..."
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
I think it's more nuanced than that. Take the university. Many buildings will require card access and so many people in all kinds of roles will wear their swipecard in a lanyard. They are not ALL of the lanyard class. Rather that refers to those in an organisation that are not involved in teaching or research but are in central services, like HR and and likely to be firm believers in the cult of diversity. They will have their pronouns in the email signature. They will receive the emails about whichever day it is and be grateful to have been informed. They will happily sign up for as many courses they can, the more they relate to DEI the better. They add little value to the university.
In my experience the HR people are neded to keep the academics under control. One academic ignored the employment legalities of a relative of mine - just for convenience: nothing wrong with her work. Things were beginning to escalate when I learned about it and I insisted that my relative talk to HR, whom the academic hadn't involved. Instant intervention and what could have been a career-disrupting tribunal (on both sides) was averted.
I do realise that we need such people. It's my contention that they often believe the university is about them, rather than teaching students and doing research.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
I think it's more nuanced than that. Take the university. Many buildings will require card access and so many people in all kinds of roles will wear their swipecard in a lanyard. They are not ALL of the lanyard class. Rather that refers to those in an organisation that are not involved in teaching or research but are in central services, like HR and and likely to be firm believers in the cult of diversity. They will have their pronouns in the email signature. They will receive the emails about whichever day it is and be grateful to have been informed. They will happily sign up for as many courses they can, the more they relate to DEI the better. They add little value to the university.
In my experience the HR people are neded to keep the academics under control. One academic ignored the employment legalities of a relative of mine - just for convenience: nothing wrong with her work. Things were beginning to escalate when I learned about it and I insisted that my relative talk to HR, whom the academic hadn't involved. Instant intervention and what could have been a career-disrupting tribunal (on both sides) was averted.
Another thing: the idea that HR are parasitic leeches promoting woke. Anyone with an actual job knows that HR represent the company and are there to ensure its staff are exploited in the interest of the company. There's nothing wrong with this: these are money making enterprises, or in the case of hospitals and schools etc they are organisation with a function to treat or teach people. Woke they are not.
Jeebus, with all this lanyard stuff I'm going to have some sort of identity crisis when I try to get into my office tomorrow morning. And Monday's bad enough as it is.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
My criticism of the Nuremberg film was the histrionics they added in. Doubt about the verdict, for example.
Valkeryre managed to create the atmosphere of the conspiracy extremely well - I recall the Guardian criticising the portrayal of the German Genarls in the conspiracy as a bunch of vacillating neurotics - well, that's how they come across in the history. They had an army of millions, and they could only find a man with a couple of fingers left to plant a bomb? A bomb made from captured British material?
The Nuremberg Court was indeed international. Russian, America, British and French, chiefly, since they were The Big Four in Europe.
Forgetting about the Allies in war films is common. If you watch Russian films, then the only people fighting WWI were the Russians and the Germans. Very occasionally a non-Russian wanders in.
I don't believe I have seen a portrayal of the Nuremberg courts that takes in the multinational nature.
There haven't been many, and the best drama - Judgment at Nuremberg - wasn't about the International Military Tribunal anyway, but rather a US tribunal.
Which was on an obscure satellite channel yesterday afternoon. Caught the last 20 minutes or so. Judy Garland was in it for goodness sake.
Its on BBC Iplayer at present, though you have to look at the films a-Z to find it
I’ve just discovered IPlayer has the episodes of Foyles War and George Gently I’ve not got so I’ll watch them this week too.
I had a fairly interesting back-and-forth with gpt and claude this week about interesting and somewhat obscure UK 60s/70s/80s drama's in the politics/dystopian/thriller line. Mostly as a "Have I really watched them all???" line. But found some I'd never even heard of. So that was worth a small forest in GPU hours, right?
It's missing a whole lot of obscure stuff (and even some well known shows I specifically prodded it with - but both were getting 'a bit tired'). If anyone's looking for tat to look out for over the festive break :
Don't think I ever saw The Sandbaggers. Looks possibly worth pursuing - is it ?
Oh yes.
It’s excellent. Fantastic cast. Roy Marsden is very good and totally unsympathetic in the main role.
Michael Cashman is in the later ones too. One of his regular roles before a career in politics.
I've always liked Marsden, so if it's well written, I might seek it out.
It’s very well written. A bit talky at times. It was written by Ian Mackintosh who also wrote Warship and who disappeared in Mysterious Circumstances. Good Cold War stuff and Ray Lonnen is a great foil for him.
Labour Councillor Michael Situ, Southwark’s Cabinet Member for Housing who decided not to take any action against Rachel Reeves, has himself been forced to resign after being caught committing the same landlord licence ‘blunder’
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
I think it's more nuanced than that. Take the university. Many buildings will require card access and so many people in all kinds of roles will wear their swipecard in a lanyard. They are not ALL of the lanyard class. Rather that refers to those in an organisation that are not involved in teaching or research but are in central services, like HR and and likely to be firm believers in the cult of diversity. They will have their pronouns in the email signature. They will receive the emails about whichever day it is and be grateful to have been informed. They will happily sign up for as many courses they can, the more they relate to DEI the better. They add little value to the university.
In my experience the HR people are neded to keep the academics under control. One academic ignored the employment legalities of a relative of mine - just for convenience: nothing wrong with her work. Things were beginning to escalate when I learned about it and I insisted that my relative talk to HR, whom the academic hadn't involved. Instant intervention and what could have been a career-disrupting tribunal (on both sides) was averted.
Another thing: the idea that HR are parasitic leeches promoting woke. Anyone with an actual job knows that HR represent the company and are there to ensure its staff are exploited in the interest of the company. There's nothing wrong with this: these are money making enterprises, or in the case of hospitals and schools etc they are organisation with a function to treat or teach people. Woke they are not.
I think that varies dramatically too from organisation to organisation.
Some, especially larger, organisations can get people using their little fiefdom to push an agenda.
Though cynically I think that even people pushing what might be considered 'woke' is normally not necessarily 'woke' but people pushing to do things to win 'awards' they're collecting like baubles.
As soon as one award is collected, lets say flavour of the month is rainbow, then its off to get the next one.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
I think it's more nuanced than that. Take the university. Many buildings will require card access and so many people in all kinds of roles will wear their swipecard in a lanyard. They are not ALL of the lanyard class. Rather that refers to those in an organisation that are not involved in teaching or research but are in central services, like HR and and likely to be firm believers in the cult of diversity. They will have their pronouns in the email signature. They will receive the emails about whichever day it is and be grateful to have been informed. They will happily sign up for as many courses they can, the more they relate to DEI the better. They add little value to the university.
In my experience the HR people are neded to keep the academics under control. One academic ignored the employment legalities of a relative of mine - just for convenience: nothing wrong with her work. Things were beginning to escalate when I learned about it and I insisted that my relative talk to HR, whom the academic hadn't involved. Instant intervention and what could have been a career-disrupting tribunal (on both sides) was averted.
I do realise that we need such people. It's my contention that they often believe the university is about them, rather than teaching students and doing research.
There's a huge gulf in quality between non-teaching staff at top universities and others, in my limited experience. At Fen Poly, as an undergrad, they were often spouses of academics, and kind and hard working and couldn't do more for you. Then I did my PhD at a very minor provincial university, and the admin staff were lazy and incompetent.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
Everyone working in schools has to wear a lanyard? I had no idea they had to. But then I haven't been to one since I left school myself.
I think this bit of Nixon's famous obituary is to the point: ..He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. (He) was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way...
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
I think it's more nuanced than that. Take the university. Many buildings will require card access and so many people in all kinds of roles will wear their swipecard in a lanyard. They are not ALL of the lanyard class. Rather that refers to those in an organisation that are not involved in teaching or research but are in central services, like HR and and likely to be firm believers in the cult of diversity. They will have their pronouns in the email signature. They will receive the emails about whichever day it is and be grateful to have been informed. They will happily sign up for as many courses they can, the more they relate to DEI the better. They add little value to the university.
In my experience the HR people are neded to keep the academics under control. One academic ignored the employment legalities of a relative of mine - just for convenience: nothing wrong with her work. Things were beginning to escalate when I learned about it and I insisted that my relative talk to HR, whom the academic hadn't involved. Instant intervention and what could have been a career-disrupting tribunal (on both sides) was averted.
Another thing: the idea that HR are parasitic leeches promoting woke. Anyone with an actual job knows that HR represent the company and are there to ensure its staff are exploited in the interest of the company. There's nothing wrong with this: these are money making enterprises, or in the case of hospitals and schools etc they are organisation with a function to treat or teach people. Woke they are not.
I think that varies dramatically too from organisation to organisation.
Some, especially larger, organisations can get people using their little fiefdom to push an agenda.
Though cynically I think that even people pushing what might be considered 'woke' is normally not necessarily 'woke' but people pushing to do things to win 'awards' they're collecting like baubles.
As soon as one award is collected, lets say flavour of the month is rainbow, then its off to get the next one.
All the volunteers at our recent real ale festival wore lanyards. Hopefully it kept all the right wing frothers away and they went back to the golf club for a pink gin instead.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
But it just shows how ignorant* the lovers of the phrase are. Just look at any bank, factory, data processing office ...
*Or utterly inner London centric.
Not sure every factory requires them, indeed some factories I have been to they'd be classed as a breach of health and safety. No ties for the same reason, do not want to get caught in the machinery.
Its one of those things that varies dramatically, but in general where they're required they're ubiquitous and you don't really get a choice on the matter.
Fair enough. But in any case our lanyards had a weak link to avoid that very issue.
I think lanyard theory comes from some tiny right-wing think tank who only ever sees them on public sector workers and hasn't realised that anyone working in financial services outside a boutique also has to wear them.
It is almost certainly that, or else they do realise others besides the public sector but don't care, since that is clearly the main target - I've noticed it cropping up in the last year or so, and in fairness it is not the worst modern attempt at relabelling something in an effort to make it easier to criticise that group, but it is a bit lame sounding to effectively make the subjects villains.
Don't think I ever saw The Sandbaggers. Looks possibly worth pursuing - is it ?
Oh yes.
It’s excellent. Fantastic cast. Roy Marsden is very good and totally unsympathetic in the main role.
Michael Cashman is in the later ones too. One of his regular roles before a career in politics.
I've always liked Marsden, so if it's well written, I might seek it out.
It’s very well written. A bit talky at times. It was written by Ian Mackintosh who also wrote Warship and who disappeared in Mysterious Circumstances. Good Cold War stuff and Ray Lonnen is a great foil for him.
It is a bit slow and not one of the best spy thingies of the period. However it comes across as realistic, or at least it did at the time. The theme tune is good, by Roy Budd...
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
I think it's more nuanced than that. Take the university. Many buildings will require card access and so many people in all kinds of roles will wear their swipecard in a lanyard. They are not ALL of the lanyard class. Rather that refers to those in an organisation that are not involved in teaching or research but are in central services, like HR and and likely to be firm believers in the cult of diversity. They will have their pronouns in the email signature. They will receive the emails about whichever day it is and be grateful to have been informed. They will happily sign up for as many courses they can, the more they relate to DEI the better. They add little value to the university.
In my experience the HR people are neded to keep the academics under control. One academic ignored the employment legalities of a relative of mine - just for convenience: nothing wrong with her work. Things were beginning to escalate when I learned about it and I insisted that my relative talk to HR, whom the academic hadn't involved. Instant intervention and what could have been a career-disrupting tribunal (on both sides) was averted.
Another thing: the idea that HR are parasitic leeches promoting woke. Anyone with an actual job knows that HR represent the company and are there to ensure its staff are exploited in the interest of the company. There's nothing wrong with this: these are money making enterprises, or in the case of hospitals and schools etc they are organisation with a function to treat or teach people. Woke they are not.
I think that varies dramatically too from organisation to organisation.
Some, especially larger, organisations can get people using their little fiefdom to push an agenda.
Though cynically I think that even people pushing what might be considered 'woke' is normally not necessarily 'woke' but people pushing to do things to win 'awards' they're collecting like baubles.
As soon as one award is collected, lets say flavour of the month is rainbow, then its off to get the next one.
There’s a certain kind of apparatchik who flits around, looking for a perch to bullshit from.
HR was popular for a while - until legal realities intruded. As in legal consequences for making up stuff. I encountered some quite mind blowing behaviour from a few HR people of this type.
Then there was the Scrum Master fashion….
Yes, life forms like this may espouse “woke”. One gets the impression that they would espouse anything they think might get them ahead. The enthusiasm with which various companies in the US have dropped DEI suggests it was all 10 miles wide and a micron deep.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
I think it's more nuanced than that. Take the university. Many buildings will require card access and so many people in all kinds of roles will wear their swipecard in a lanyard. They are not ALL of the lanyard class. Rather that refers to those in an organisation that are not involved in teaching or research but are in central services, like HR and and likely to be firm believers in the cult of diversity. They will have their pronouns in the email signature. They will receive the emails about whichever day it is and be grateful to have been informed. They will happily sign up for as many courses they can, the more they relate to DEI the better. They add little value to the university.
In my experience the HR people are neded to keep the academics under control. One academic ignored the employment legalities of a relative of mine - just for convenience: nothing wrong with her work. Things were beginning to escalate when I learned about it and I insisted that my relative talk to HR, whom the academic hadn't involved. Instant intervention and what could have been a career-disrupting tribunal (on both sides) was averted.
Another thing: the idea that HR are parasitic leeches promoting woke. Anyone with an actual job knows that HR represent the company and are there to ensure its staff are exploited in the interest of the company. There's nothing wrong with this: these are money making enterprises, or in the case of hospitals and schools etc they are organisation with a function to treat or teach people. Woke they are not.
I think that varies dramatically too from organisation to organisation.
Some, especially larger, organisations can get people using their little fiefdom to push an agenda.
Though cynically I think that even people pushing what might be considered 'woke' is normally not necessarily 'woke' but people pushing to do things to win 'awards' they're collecting like baubles.
As soon as one award is collected, lets say flavour of the month is rainbow, then its off to get the next one.
Yes, there are definitely some in the field who spot an opportunity to do a bit of lecturing and message pushing, though the majority are just getting on with the basics.
There are functions that often need doing which HR can fulfill, but in larger orgs especially some can try to use it to go beyond the necessary, and that's when staff get really annoyed. So it is not entirely a myth.
(I recently saw something similar in a non-HR area where someone found a pretext through a very tangential connection to try to push to the team how great citizen assemblies were - which even if people agree on that, it was barely relevant to any business).
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
I think it's more nuanced than that. Take the university. Many buildings will require card access and so many people in all kinds of roles will wear their swipecard in a lanyard. They are not ALL of the lanyard class. Rather that refers to those in an organisation that are not involved in teaching or research but are in central services, like HR and and likely to be firm believers in the cult of diversity. They will have their pronouns in the email signature. They will receive the emails about whichever day it is and be grateful to have been informed. They will happily sign up for as many courses they can, the more they relate to DEI the better. They add little value to the university.
In my experience the HR people are neded to keep the academics under control. One academic ignored the employment legalities of a relative of mine - just for convenience: nothing wrong with her work. Things were beginning to escalate when I learned about it and I insisted that my relative talk to HR, whom the academic hadn't involved. Instant intervention and what could have been a career-disrupting tribunal (on both sides) was averted.
Another thing: the idea that HR are parasitic leeches promoting woke. Anyone with an actual job knows that HR represent the company and are there to ensure its staff are exploited in the interest of the company. There's nothing wrong with this: these are money making enterprises, or in the case of hospitals and schools etc they are organisation with a function to treat or teach people. Woke they are not.
I think that varies dramatically too from organisation to organisation.
Some, especially larger, organisations can get people using their little fiefdom to push an agenda.
Though cynically I think that even people pushing what might be considered 'woke' is normally not necessarily 'woke' but people pushing to do things to win 'awards' they're collecting like baubles.
As soon as one award is collected, lets say flavour of the month is rainbow, then its off to get the next one.
There’s a certain kind of apparatchik who flits around, looking for a perch to bullshit from.
HR was popular for a while - until legal realities intruded. As in legal consequences for making up stuff. I encountered some quite mind blowing behaviour from a few HR people of this type.
Then there was the Scrum Master fashion….
Yes, life forms like this may espouse “woke”. One gets the impression that they would espouse anything they think might get them ahead. The enthusiasm with which various companies in the US have dropped DEI suggests it was all 10 miles wide and a micron deep.
Yeah, that 'get ahead' thing ties in with my 'award' cynicism. That its not about what's being said, but thinking its helpful to say it for their own career.
A year ago I was at an organisation that had recently won a 'rainbow' award it proudly displayed, they'd changed the toilets to unisex which the female staff I spoke to were very unhappy with and it came up surprisingly often in conversations, but not around the leadership team.
They were now pushing to win an environmental award and as part of that were amongst other things encouraging vegetarianism.
I questioned why the many reams of waste paper I'd seen were going into the same general waste bins as other waste and why they weren't recycling, and could that not be a good point to start for environmentalism? Oh its too difficult to separate was the response.
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
I think it's more nuanced than that. Take the university. Many buildings will require card access and so many people in all kinds of roles will wear their swipecard in a lanyard. They are not ALL of the lanyard class. Rather that refers to those in an organisation that are not involved in teaching or research but are in central services, like HR and and likely to be firm believers in the cult of diversity. They will have their pronouns in the email signature. They will receive the emails about whichever day it is and be grateful to have been informed. They will happily sign up for as many courses they can, the more they relate to DEI the better. They add little value to the university.
In my experience the HR people are neded to keep the academics under control. One academic ignored the employment legalities of a relative of mine - just for convenience: nothing wrong with her work. Things were beginning to escalate when I learned about it and I insisted that my relative talk to HR, whom the academic hadn't involved. Instant intervention and what could have been a career-disrupting tribunal (on both sides) was averted.
Another thing: the idea that HR are parasitic leeches promoting woke. Anyone with an actual job knows that HR represent the company and are there to ensure its staff are exploited in the interest of the company. There's nothing wrong with this: these are money making enterprises, or in the case of hospitals and schools etc they are organisation with a function to treat or teach people. Woke they are not.
I think that varies dramatically too from organisation to organisation.
Some, especially larger, organisations can get people using their little fiefdom to push an agenda.
Though cynically I think that even people pushing what might be considered 'woke' is normally not necessarily 'woke' but people pushing to do things to win 'awards' they're collecting like baubles.
As soon as one award is collected, lets say flavour of the month is rainbow, then its off to get the next one.
There’s a certain kind of apparatchik who flits around, looking for a perch to bullshit from.
HR was popular for a while - until legal realities intruded. As in legal consequences for making up stuff. I encountered some quite mind blowing behaviour from a few HR people of this type.
Then there was the Scrum Master fashion….
Yes, life forms like this may espouse “woke”. One gets the impression that they would espouse anything they think might get them ahead. The enthusiasm with which various companies in the US have dropped DEI suggests it was all 10 miles wide and a micron deep.
What I've found it people don't like a specific 'culture' being forced on them, so HR messaging in that arena can be really irritating. Culture is real, but it is something more intangible and organic than some corporate slogans and strategies can instill, even when it is sincere.
And it may not always be their idea, it can come from the top, but there are lower level instances of imposed 'values' which may not really be very relevant and that is where you get presumed universality of such pushed by HR types, who can drip with insincerity as they have to pretend that people can disagree without consequence or that it is some kind of conversation.
I'm far from a troublemaker, and I've seen some good instances where people in that position have responded well to a dialogue, but I've also seen people worried to speak their minds, and instructors barely conceal their irriration if people don't just follow the script.
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
She is a devout Muslim and single I believe.
'In a 2024 interview with Gabriel Pogrund of The Sunday Times, Mahmood was described as a "devout Muslim". She said, "My faith is the centrepoint of my life and it drives me to public service, it drives me in the way that I live my life and I see my life.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood#LGBT_issues
Perhaps she is a devout muslim. Or perhaps we have reached the apogee of equality in Britain: one can lie about being a committed Muslim to appear primeministerial just as surely as one can lie about being a committed Christian for the same purpose.
ISTR a LD (e) leader was ousted because he was a Christian.
He was also really quite rubbish. I only have a faint memory of anything to do with him being a Christian. But I have very strong memories of him being, well, really rubbish.
Being Christian wasn't really an issue, although people did raise questions about the impact of his faith, and didn't he basically admit to lying about things to stop the questions about what he thought was a sin, which is something he later said he regretted doing?
I have a theory that "lanyard wearing classes" is code for Public sector i.e., not real worker). After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
Everyone working in schools has to wear a lanyard? I had no idea they had to. But then I haven't been to one since I left school myself.
Absolutely. Ydoether explains why above. It is a safeguarding issue. Expect to be escorted off the property pdq if you don't have one.
Scott Bessent says the reason beef prices are so high is because immigrants from South America are bringing their cattle with them as they come here and they are infected with diseases. https://x.com/KellyScaletta/status/1990060260032483563
I realise Trump is likely senile, but the rest of his cabinet seem well on the way too.
He obviously intends to be President until the cows come home.
Comments
Michelle Obama:
“Don't even look at me about running, because you all are lying. You're not ready for a woman. So don't waste my time. We got a lot of growing up to do.”
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/1989486923770204284
Unlike my arse, which adds it's own
Making puns on Nazi leaders.
Perhaps we should abandon it and make line drawings with fine pens instead.
After all, Nazis says 'caricature,' caricature says 'art' or says 'ink art.'
It's missing a whole lot of obscure stuff (and even some well known shows I specifically prodded it with - but both were getting 'a bit tired'). If anyone's looking for tat to look out for over the festive break :
https://pastebin.com/fnkuCPDj
After all. Visit any school or hospital and everyone working there will have one.
But she's not accepting the reality that Clinton and Harris were bad candidates.
She's got a lot of growing up to do.
I think the only place I've not need a pass are small firms less than 20 people where everyone knows each other..
Now that I've typed that - it feels more like it should be a description of "the nebulous crowd who should all be sacked". Nice big QR code on their lanyard that takes you to a webpage at 'https://should-this-person-be-sacked.co.uk?a=Yes'.
*Or utterly inner London centric.
But most people don't have access to many offices. (Because they don't have lanyards!?).
So Public sector is who they'll see wearing them.
NHS. Their kid's school. Council officials.
You know. Skivers and woke layabouts with no proper work and massive pensions.
No one more obscurer.
I’ve seen people replace their lanyard with a Palestinian coloured one. For work. These are the “lanyard wearing class(es).”
Good night.
So says the camp commandant.
Its one of those things that varies dramatically, but in general where they're required they're ubiquitous and you don't really get a choice on the matter.
Looks possibly worth pursuing - is it ?
It’s excellent. Fantastic cast. Roy Marsden is very good and totally unsympathetic in the main role.
Michael Cashman is in the later ones too. One of his regular roles before a career in politics.
Scott Bessent says the reason beef prices are so high is because immigrants from South America are bringing their cattle with them as they come here and they are infected with diseases.
https://x.com/KellyScaletta/status/1990060260032483563
I realise Trump is likely senile, but the rest of his cabinet seem well on the way too.
At some worksites, no jewellery, mobile phones/radios on cords (so when you drop it off the scaffold you don't kill someone below), reverse parking and.... 10mph limits.
I think lanyard theory comes from some tiny right-wing think tank who only ever sees them on public sector workers and hasn't realised that anyone working in financial services outside a boutique also has to wear them.
Satisfaction with the PM remains unchanged since September, continuing to be the worst ever recorded by Ipsos for a Prime Minister, going back to 1977…
https://x.com/Ipsos_in_the_UK/status/1990021764210909231
Reeves has also narrowly dethroned Kwarteng, as least satisfying Chancellor.
Venezuela is larger than Ukraine.
White House aggressively posting “trump is straight” content amid the blow job e-mail
https://bsky.app/profile/lebassett.bsky.social/post/3m5rlviqyc22s
Labour Councillor Michael Situ, Southwark’s Cabinet Member for Housing who decided not to take any action against Rachel Reeves, has himself been forced to resign after being caught committing the same landlord licence ‘blunder’
https://x.com/joerichlaw/status/1990120898121158843?s=20
Some, especially larger, organisations can get people using their little fiefdom to push an agenda.
Though cynically I think that even people pushing what might be considered 'woke' is normally not necessarily 'woke' but people pushing to do things to win 'awards' they're collecting like baubles.
As soon as one award is collected, lets say flavour of the month is rainbow, then its off to get the next one.
..He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. (He) was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way...
It is a bit slow and not one of the best spy thingies of the period. However it comes across as realistic, or at least it did at the time. The theme tune is good, by Roy Budd...
- The Sandbaggers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSCmoSHlTwg
...who also brought you theseHR was popular for a while - until legal realities intruded. As in legal consequences for making up stuff. I encountered some quite mind blowing behaviour from a few HR people of this type.
Then there was the Scrum Master fashion….
Yes, life forms like this may espouse “woke”. One gets the impression that they would espouse anything they think might get them ahead. The enthusiasm with which various companies in the US have dropped DEI suggests it was all 10 miles wide and a micron deep.
There are functions that often need doing which HR can fulfill, but in larger orgs especially some can try to use it to go beyond the necessary, and that's when staff get really annoyed. So it is not entirely a myth.
(I recently saw something similar in a non-HR area where someone found a pretext through a very tangential connection to try to push to the team how great citizen assemblies were - which even if people agree on that, it was barely relevant to any business).
A year ago I was at an organisation that had recently won a 'rainbow' award it proudly displayed, they'd changed the toilets to unisex which the female staff I spoke to were very unhappy with and it came up surprisingly often in conversations, but not around the leadership team.
They were now pushing to win an environmental award and as part of that were amongst other things encouraging vegetarianism.
I questioned why the many reams of waste paper I'd seen were going into the same general waste bins as other waste and why they weren't recycling, and could that not be a good point to start for environmentalism? Oh its too difficult to separate was the response.
And it may not always be their idea, it can come from the top, but there are lower level instances of imposed 'values' which may not really be very relevant and that is where you get presumed universality of such pushed by HR types, who can drip with insincerity as they have to pretend that people can disagree without consequence or that it is some kind of conversation.
I'm far from a troublemaker, and I've seen some good instances where people in that position have responded well to a dialogue, but I've also seen people worried to speak their minds, and instructors barely conceal their irriration if people don't just follow the script.
Expect to be escorted off the property pdq if you don't have one.