Wasn't this also addressed in the articles from 2005 when individual Tory policies all polled well but the package went down like a mound of luke-warm red sick.
We covered this re Osborne and Balls - it's about credibility and trust on an issue.
So Osborne and Balls could offer exactly the same policy on public spending - but only Osborne has the level of trust required by the markets and public to do it 'safely'. Balls/Labour failed to establish their chops here and the voters/markets would view it as more evidence of their inability to be thrifty.
Thanks to the fellows that found the successive 5 fors from English bowlers... Any other examples of 6 fors a la Anderson, Finn & Broad in the last three innings?
What effect would there be on the NHS,the banking sytem,the agricultural production sector,the hospitality and service industries and the care sector of a total ban on immigrant for 2 years? Labour must take this on.Our economy and public services need immigration to survive,the mean reason being we are living longer.36% of NHS doctors are immigrants.Do people really want to throw them all out? Do you really want to shoot your foot off?
Interesting stats, but they may also be white noise.
What matters isn't whether people back leaving the EU or bringing back hanging, nationalising goldfish or banning profits, but what they vote on. All the rest is peripheral.
What counts are policies that attract people, or that really put them off.
I do feel somewhat sorry for politicians sometimes, even if the situation is something they've made themselves - but it must be frustrating to be able to offer the same thing but get no appreciation for it while the other side so. Of course, the flip of that is they rely on it to criticise their opponent for something which their opponent cannot get away with due to public perception.
It would be good to have some polling on salience as well as popularity of policies. Which of these views are entrenched and vote-changing and which of them are just thoughtless, the equivalent of facebook likes?
For example, I would be interested to know whether people on zero hours contracts were as hostile to them as the general public.
Every now and then some Guardian journos get it. There should be some way for the dead to get redress when they are the victims of libel and slander.
Why? They're dead. Nothing can hurt them after they're dead.
In the same way, when we apologise to dead people we're not doing anything for them. We're doing it for us - to send a message or to make ourselves feel good about whatever it is we're doing. Very rarely does an apology do any good and then only when it is to those remaining who have suffered because of what's happened e.g. Cameron following the Savile report on Bloody Sunday and to the families of those who died at Hillsborough.
If anything, I think it is good that once people are dead the laws of defamation don't apply because it is usually only then that things which have not been said out of fear of a lawsuit are said e.g. Jimmy Savile, Maxwell etc. Our libel laws are chilling enough as it is without extending them to dead people.
A classic case of BBC bias at the moment: they do an entire story on the nuclear attack on Hiroshima, discussing all the negatives from it, without even once mentioning the Empire of Japan or aggressive war that it put to an end.
A classic case of BBC bias at the moment: they do an entire story on the nuclear attack on Hiroshima, discussing all the negatives from it, without even once mentioning the Empire of Japan or aggressive war that it put to an end.
Yes, one did get the impression that Japan was the victim of aggression, from reading that piece.
What effect would there be on the NHS,the banking sytem,the agricultural production sector,the hospitality and service industries and the care sector of a total ban on immigrant for 2 years? Labour must take this on.Our economy and public services need immigration to survive,the mean reason being we are living longer.36% of NHS doctors are immigrants.Do people really want to throw them all out? Do you really want to shoot your foot off?
Nope, wont work. Labour have no credibility with the public on immigration, after the Blair years of open door immigration the public aren't listening, any attempt to do the above will sound like justification for those policies and everyone will think you really mean open the doors again. If that needs to be said only a conservative will be trusted to say it until the Blair years fade from the public concious.
Even then its doing to be uphill, remember the British Social Attitude Survey last year, 76% want to reduce immigration, 52% want to reduce it by a lot, that's a hell of a hill to climb even if you have credibility on the issue. 76% in a survey is up there in "are kittens cute" territory.
Every now and then some Guardian journos get it. There should be some way for the dead to get redress when they are the victims of libel and slander.
Why? They're dead. Nothing can hurt them after they're dead.
In the same way, when we apologise to dead people we're not doing anything for them. We're doing it for us - to send a message or to make ourselves feel good about whatever it is we're doing. Very rarely does an apology do any good and then only when it is to those remaining who have suffered because of what's happened e.g. Cameron following the Savile report on Bloody Sunday and to the families of those who died at Hillsborough.
If anything, I think it is good that once people are dead the laws of defamation don't apply because it is usually only then that things which have not been said out of fear of a lawsuit are said e.g. Jimmy Savile, Maxwell etc. Our libel laws are chilling enough as it is without extending them to dead people.
Although there could be cases where an individuals name has become a brand.
If, for instance, John Lennon were accused of something terrible* such that it damaged the value of the Beatles brand, surely there should be some mechanism for redress?
(* apart from bad signing and falsely claiming credit for lyrics, that is)
Every now and then some Guardian journos get it. There should be some way for the dead to get redress when they are the victims of libel and slander.
They'd find it hard to sue.
Maybe we need to be quicker to find a cause of action for the family of the libelled person, since having your dead dad (I realise Heath didn't have children) dragged through the mud repeatedly must be damaging to you. Political parties of course also have no standing - that rule's probably OK.
Yes, one did get the impression that Japan was the victim of aggression, from reading that piece.
Plus I've read the Japanese were digging themselves in for what would have been an utterly dreadful, down to the last person type defence of their islands.
Most recent appears to be (of all unlikely trios) Chris Lewis (6-111) Phil Tufnell (6-25) and Phil DeFreitas (7-70), in 1991: 4th and 5th Tests against the Windies and a one-off against Sri Lanka. Syd Lawrence also took five wickets in the fifth test.
Thanks to the fellows that found the successive 5 fors from English bowlers... Any other examples of 6 fors a la Anderson, Finn & Broad in the last three innings?
Every now and then some Guardian journos get it. There should be some way for the dead to get redress when they are the victims of libel and slander.
Why? They're dead. Nothing can hurt them after they're dead.
It can and does hurt their families though. In the specific case of Heath his reputation is being slaughtered on, from what I can see, very little hard evidence. Surely if you are going to drag someone through the mud a little evidence would be nice.
It would be good to have some polling on salience as well as popularity of policies. Which of these views are entrenched and vote-changing and which of them are just thoughtless, the equivalent of facebook likes?
For example, I would be interested to know whether people on zero hours contracts were as hostile to them as the general public.
Zero contracts is an odd one, almost none of the public had any first hand experience of it and the majority of those that did worked either for charities or the public sector, and yet they were told they should hate them by left leaning politicians, who actually did quite a good job of drowning out the voices of other people on ZHC who said they rather liked the flexibility and ability to hold more than one contract at once. After the coalition made the changes on "exploitative contracts" the complaints became even more bizarre.
Every now and then some Guardian journos get it. There should be some way for the dead to get redress when they are the victims of libel and slander.
Why? They're dead. Nothing can hurt them after they're dead.
It can and does hurt their families though. In the specific case of Heath his reputation is being slaughtered on, from what I can see, very little hard evidence. Surely if you are going to drag someone through the mud a little evidence would be nice.
What effect would there be on the NHS,the banking sytem,the agricultural production sector,the hospitality and service industries and the care sector of a total ban on immigrant for 2 years? Labour must take this on.Our economy and public services need immigration to survive,the mean reason being we are living longer.36% of NHS doctors are immigrants.Do people really want to throw them all out? Do you really want to shoot your foot off?
I wasn't aware anybody wanted an end to immigration for 2 years and I've never heard anybody suggest that doctors should be thrown out. Perhaps labour should stop making things up.
Most recent appears to be (of all unlikely trios) Chris Lewis (6-111) Phil Tufnell (6-25) and Phil DeFreitas (7-70), in 1991: 4th and 5th Tests against the Windies and a one-off against Sri Lanka. Syd Lawrence also took five wickets in the fifth test.
Thanks to the fellows that found the successive 5 fors from English bowlers... Any other examples of 6 fors a la Anderson, Finn & Broad in the last three innings?
Brilliant research, well done and thanks
EDIT: Hang on, they aren't in successive innings are they?
Most recent appears to be (of all unlikely trios) Chris Lewis (6-111) Phil Tufnell (6-25) and Phil DeFreitas (7-70), in 1991: 4th and 5th Tests against the Windies and a one-off against Sri Lanka. Syd Lawrence also took five wickets in the fifth test.
Thanks to the fellows that found the successive 5 fors from English bowlers... Any other examples of 6 fors a la Anderson, Finn & Broad in the last three innings?
Brilliant research, well done and thanks
EDIT: Hang on, they aren't in successive innings are they?
The 1991s (Lewis, Tufnell and DeFreitas) aren't in successive innings are they? Anderson, Finn then Broad have taken 6 fors in successive innings, the West Indies chased the target for 3 in the 2nd Inns of the Lewis match
Alternative theory- people will tend to support everything but the very ridiculous when answering these type of questions. Yet if there was ever a referendum on each, the status quo would no doubt be emphatically backed.
It can and does hurt their families though. In the specific case of Heath his reputation is being slaughtered on, from what I can see, very little hard evidence. Surely if you are going to drag someone through the mud a little evidence would be nice.
Yes, although some true accusations may be supporessed by libel laws while the individual is alive, equally some false accusations are more easily made when the individual isn't there to refute them. I'm far from convinced that Heath was guilty of anything.
Links relating to other things we've been discussing:
Once again, my TV was lucky to survive after watching Victoria Derbyshire for about 10 mins whilst I had my porridge. There was some "gobby" woman on talking about Kids' Company and how wonderful they were. Then she set off on a rant about David Cameron:
1. he was responsible for the padlocked gates 2. he was responsible for returning the country to Victorian times, with all these children becoming "street urchins" 3. if any of these children now get abused, it's all his fault 4. etc, etc, etc
no interruptions, or counter-arguments from VD of course. If the government don't do something about the BBC this parliament, then they never will.
Mr. Palmer, a problem with Greece 'nearing the endgame' is that we've had that several times yet the end never quite materialised.
It also remains to be seen just what the endgame is. Leaving the eurozone is one obvious example, but could the eurozone rush through integration measures instead? Could it be massive writing off of debt?
Once again, my TV was lucky to survive after watching Victoria Derbyshire for about 10 mins whilst I had my porridge. There was some "gobby" woman on talking about Kids' Company and how wonderful they were. Then she set off on a rant about David Cameron:
1. he was responsible for the padlocked gates 2. he was responsible for returning the country to Victorian times, with all these children becoming "street urchins" 3. if any of these children now get abused, it's all his fault 4. etc, etc, etc
no interruptions, or counter-arguments from VD of course. If the government don't do something about the BBC this parliament, then they never will.
Once again, my TV was lucky to survive after watching Victoria Derbyshire for about 10 mins whilst I had my porridge. There was some "gobby" woman on talking about Kids' Company and how wonderful they were. Then she set off on a rant about David Cameron:
1. he was responsible for the padlocked gates 2. he was responsible for returning the country to Victorian times, with all these children becoming "street urchins" 3. if any of these children now get abused, it's all his fault 4. etc, etc, etc
no interruptions, or counter-arguments from VD of course. If the government don't do something about the BBC this parliament, then they never will.
Most recent appears to be (of all unlikely trios) Chris Lewis (6-111) Phil Tufnell (6-25) and Phil DeFreitas (7-70), in 1991: 4th and 5th Tests against the Windies and a one-off against Sri Lanka. Syd Lawrence also took five wickets in the fifth test.
Thanks to the fellows that found the successive 5 fors from English bowlers... Any other examples of 6 fors a la Anderson, Finn & Broad in the last three innings?
Brilliant research, well done and thanks
EDIT: Hang on, they aren't in successive innings are they?
The 1991s (Lewis, Tufnell and DeFreitas) aren't in successive innings are they? Anderson, Finn then Broad have taken 6 fors in successive innings, the West Indies chased the target for 3 in the 2nd Inns of the Lewis match
No, I didn't realise that was the criteria you wanted, I thought you meant successive matches. I think the earlier one meets your criteria though.
If you want to check for any others (I didn't have the energy to go through them all) the list of 6-fors for England is here.
Once again, my TV was lucky to survive after watching Victoria Derbyshire for about 10 mins whilst I had my porridge. There was some "gobby" woman on talking about Kids' Company and how wonderful they were. Then she set off on a rant about David Cameron:
1. he was responsible for the padlocked gates 2. he was responsible for returning the country to Victorian times, with all these children becoming "street urchins" 3. if any of these children now get abused, it's all his fault 4. etc, etc, etc
no interruptions, or counter-arguments from VD of course. If the government don't do something about the BBC this parliament, then they never will.
...and in a parallel universe a Labour voter is saying how biased Sky are to the Tories and how they prefer the more balanced reporting of the BBC
Once again, my TV was lucky to survive after watching Victoria Derbyshire for about 10 mins whilst I had my porridge. There was some "gobby" woman on talking about Kids' Company and how wonderful they were. Then she set off on a rant about David Cameron:
1. he was responsible for the padlocked gates 2. he was responsible for returning the country to Victorian times, with all these children becoming "street urchins" 3. if any of these children now get abused, it's all his fault 4. etc, etc, etc
no interruptions, or counter-arguments from VD of course. If the government don't do something about the BBC this parliament, then they never will.
...and in a parallel universe a Labour voter is saying how biased Sky are to the Tories and how they prefer the more balanced reporting of the BBC
In 1944, Lt. Hiroo Onoda aged 20, was sent by the Japanese army to the remote Philippine island of Lubang. His mission was to conduct guerrilla warfare during World War II. Unfortunately, he was never officially told the war had ended; so for 29 years, Onoda continued to live in the jungle, ready for when his country would again need his services and information.
Hmm, dedication beyond the call of Duty or just really poor mobile phone reception?
A classic case of BBC bias at the moment: they do an entire story on the nuclear attack on Hiroshima, discussing all the negatives from it, without even once mentioning the Empire of Japan or aggressive war that it put to an end.
They made it sound like the Yanks did it on a whim! No one believes nuclear weapons are nice but what was the alternative here, an invasion of Japan and a drawn out war of attrition?
@NickPalmer Thank you for the article, but this is the salient point and the reason why Corbyn is simply not the candidate for Labour right now:
'So, as for electability, it could be that there are many people who just didn’t bother voting in the last election who would be ready to come out for Corbyn.'
Let's compare it to a more realistic view I linked to this morning on Labour Uncut:
Many of Corbyn’s supporters argue that it would be “suicidal” to chase Tory votes; the answer is to win the votes of people who didn’t bother to vote last time- starvelings who just need to be roused from their slumbers. It’s impossible to persuade this group that they might have a rather romantic view of non voters . They aren’t interested in knowing how many non-voters live in seats already held by Labour. They aren’t interested in hearing that Australia , where voting is compulsory, has a Tory government. They aren’t interested in the fact that non-voters don’t, on the whole, actually vote.
Brian Eno is deluding himself if he thinks Corbyn is the standard bearer of 'a strong nascent progressive movement.' He talks for a handful of people who are too radical for mainstream politics and therefore complain all the time without actually doing anything practical. Just because they make a lot of noise does not mean that winning them over will help Labour win elections.
If you doubt me, remember the Russell Brand silliness a few months ago and how much it helped Labour.
I think the Okinawa and Iwo Jima campaigns convinced the US that they needed to use the A-bombs.
Operations Olympic and Coronet were planned (the invasion of Japan proper), but the projected casualty figures were horrific.
I remember reading something like 1m *American* casualties project
That jibes with estimates I've seen, though there's a good deal of variance. Okinawa cost around 65k US casualties (12k dead), somewhere between 70-100k Japanese troops died and (again estimates vary) up to 150k Japanese civilians were also killed.
The invasion of Kyushu alone was projected to cost 450k US casualties, and Lord knows how many Japanese civilians would have died. I think this tends to be forgotten nowadays.
This partnership is now worth more than the Australian innings.
Snigger.
Don't jinx it! I know your track record!
I refuse to take the blame for that. What I would say is the fact that wickets are still falling on this pitch makes England even more likely to win. A 100 run lead here would be massive. 200 and we may well be looking at an innings win.
Once again, my TV was lucky to survive after watching Victoria Derbyshire for about 10 mins whilst I had my porridge. There was some "gobby" woman on talking about Kids' Company and how wonderful they were. Then she set off on a rant about David Cameron:
1. he was responsible for the padlocked gates 2. he was responsible for returning the country to Victorian times, with all these children becoming "street urchins" 3. if any of these children now get abused, it's all his fault 4. etc, etc, etc
no interruptions, or counter-arguments from VD of course. If the government don't do something about the BBC this parliament, then they never will.
...and in a parallel universe a Labour voter is saying how biased Sky are to the Tories and how they prefer the more balanced reporting of the BBC
To be honest, I don't really watch any particular news channel or read a particular paper, so don't know.. I agree the BBC is probably biased to the left, but I would expect a state broadcaster to be in all honesty. It could be a lot worse.
I was just making the point that most people think that opinions that agree with their own are balanced/correct while those that don't, aren't. Same as when you get "Dan Hodges on the money again" from people centrists/Blairites/Cameroons. It doesn't really need to be said, all you are really saying is "Dan Hodges agrees with me and I think I am right". I would say I do the same with Peter Hitchens, I think he is bang on the money most of the time.. by pure coincidence he says what I want to hear
My understanding is that by the start of 1945 the Japanese High Command knew very well that the war was lost. What they were counting on was that they could inflict severe enough casualties on an invader of the Homeland that they could obtain good peace terms (such as retaining Formosa, Korea, and some of their Chinese conquests). Even by August 1945, they weren't prepared to surrender unconditionally.
It's hard to argue that the Allies should have dropped their demand for unconditional surrender, and accepted Japanese peace terms.
Prolonging the war would have meant prolonging the suffering of Allied POWs and Chinese suffering at Japanese hands.
Once again, my TV was lucky to survive after watching Victoria Derbyshire for about 10 mins whilst I had my porridge. There was some "gobby" woman on talking about Kids' Company and how wonderful they were. Then she set off on a rant about David Cameron:
1. he was responsible for the padlocked gates 2. he was responsible for returning the country to Victorian times, with all these children becoming "street urchins" 3. if any of these children now get abused, it's all his fault 4. etc, etc, etc
no interruptions, or counter-arguments from VD of course. If the government don't do something about the BBC this parliament, then they never will.
...and in a parallel universe a Labour voter is saying how biased Sky are to the Tories and how they prefer the more balanced reporting of the BBC
To be honest, I don't really watch any particular news channel or read a particular paper, so don't know.. I agree the BBC is probably biased to the left, but I would expect a state broadcaster to be in all honesty. It could be a lot worse.
I was just making the point that most people think that opinions that agree with their own are balanced/correct while those that don't, aren't. Same as when you get "Dan Hodges on the money again" from people centrists/Blairites/Cameroons. It doesn't really need to be said, all you are really saying is "Dan Hodges agrees with me and I think I am right". I would say I do the same with Peter Hitchens, I think he is bang on the money most of the time.. by pure coincidence he says what I want to hear
The BBC didn't used to be biased to the left, even when Thatcher was PM.
Once again, my TV was lucky to survive after watching Victoria Derbyshire for about 10 mins whilst I had my porridge. There was some "gobby" woman on talking about Kids' Company and how wonderful they were. Then she set off on a rant about David Cameron:
1. he was responsible for the padlocked gates 2. he was responsible for returning the country to Victorian times, with all these children becoming "street urchins" 3. if any of these children now get abused, it's all his fault 4. etc, etc, etc
no interruptions, or counter-arguments from VD of course. If the government don't do something about the BBC this parliament, then they never will.
...and in a parallel universe a Labour voter is saying how biased Sky are to the Tories and how they prefer the more balanced reporting of the BBC
To be honest, I don't really watch any particular news channel or read a particular paper, so don't know.. I agree the BBC is probably biased to the left, but I would expect a state broadcaster to be in all honesty. It could be a lot worse.
I was just making the point that most people think that opinions that agree with their own are balanced/correct while those that don't, aren't. Same as when you get "Dan Hodges on the money again" from people centrists/Blairites/Cameroons. It doesn't really need to be said, all you are really saying is "Dan Hodges agrees with me and I think I am right". I would say I do the same with Peter Hitchens, I think he is bang on the money most of the time.. by pure coincidence he says what I want to hear
The BBC didn't used to be biased to the left, even when Thatcher was PM.
The problem with the Eno article is that it doesn't answer a single one of the points that Alan Johnson made the previous day about what real, grinding politics takes to deliver social change.
"Until February 2015, when The Spectator published my article on Kids Company, not a single bad word about it or its chief executive Camila Batmanghelidjh had appeared in the mainstream media.
This may seem surprising now, as the scale of the scandal surrounding the now-defunct charity unfolds, but for the best part of 20 years it was treated by journalists and politicians with a reverence which I believe it had not merited for a long time."
Every now and then some Guardian journos get it. There should be some way for the dead to get redress when they are the victims of libel and slander.
Why? They're dead. Nothing can hurt them after they're dead.
In the same way, when we apologise to dead people we're not doing anything for them. We're doing it for us - to send a message or to make ourselves feel good about whatever it is we're doing. Very rarely does an apology do any good and then only when it is to those remaining who have suffered because of what's happened e.g. Cameron following the Savile report on Bloody Sunday and to the families of those who died at Hillsborough.
If anything, I think it is good that once people are dead the laws of defamation don't apply because it is usually only then that things which have not been said out of fear of a lawsuit are said e.g. Jimmy Savile, Maxwell etc. Our libel laws are chilling enough as it is without extending them to dead people.
I guess you didn't read the article. Your last paragraph makes the assumption of course that being able to make an allegation without fear of it being tested by evidence is somehow a good thing. You show scant regard for the families/friends of the deceased.
"London’s image as gay-friendly is dented today by a poll showing people in the capital are less likely than other Britons to be supportive of a gay or transgender child.
A YouGov poll for PinkNews found Londoners over five times more likely than Scots or Northerners to say they would reject a gay child.
PinkNews chief executive Benjamin Cohen commented: “This polling is eye-opening as it goes against the widely accepted notion that London is the most tolerant part of the country when it comes to LGBT issues.
“Beyond the liberal, metropolitan elite, there are clearly many people in the capital who would react negatively to their child being gay or transgender. This shows the need for greater support structures, education and awareness to help families foster an environment that allows children to come out comfortably.” "
Camilla Long is very hard to dupe - in her STimes piece, she said Batman was extremely plausible and it was hard not to be carried along with her/notice the large gaps/lack of evidence of her claims.
"Until February 2015, when The Spectator published my article on Kids Company, not a single bad word about it or its chief executive Camila Batmanghelidjh had appeared in the mainstream media.
This may seem surprising now, as the scale of the scandal surrounding the now-defunct charity unfolds, but for the best part of 20 years it was treated by journalists and politicians with a reverence which I believe it had not merited for a long time."
No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I have always had real problems in understanding why President Truman had any choice but to use the atomic bomb.
It had been developed at truly staggering expense. It was a chance to finish an exceptionally brutal war and save millions of lives. And was it really that much worse than the fire bombing of Tokyo (or Dresden)?
I have read a few biographies of Truman and I don't think there is much evidence that he gave it a second's thought. And quite right too.
"London’s image as gay-friendly is dented today by a poll showing people in the capital are less likely than other Britons to be supportive of a gay or transgender child.
A YouGov poll for PinkNews found Londoners over five times more likely than Scots or Northerners to say they would reject a gay child.
PinkNews chief executive Benjamin Cohen commented: “This polling is eye-opening as it goes against the widely accepted notion that London is the most tolerant part of the country when it comes to LGBT issues.
“Beyond the liberal, metropolitan elite, there are clearly many people in the capital who would react negatively to their child being gay or transgender. This shows the need for greater support structures, education and awareness to help families foster an environment that allows children to come out comfortably.” "
No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I have always had real problems in understanding why President Truman had any choice but to use the atomic bomb.
It had been developed at truly staggering expense. It was a chance to finish an exceptionally brutal war and save millions of lives. And was it really that much worse than the fire bombing of Tokyo (or Dresden)?
I have read a few biographies of Truman and I don't think there is much evidence that he gave it a second's thought. And quite right too.
Max Hastings' book "Nemesis: the Battle for Japan" really is a very good account. US battle casualties were way in excess of anything they suffered in Europe (1m US casualties in the 12 months to July 1945). By August 1945, the Japanese were still in occupation of huge swathes of territory, and enormous military and civilian casualties would have been incurred, dislodging them from it. And, the Japanese commanders were counting on massive Allied casualties, in the event of an invasion of the Homeland, brining them to the negotiating table.
Like you, I find it hard to see any real argument against using the atomic bombs. More people died when Curtis Le May firebombed Tokyo.
I listened in a little earlier, and wish they had mentioned the Tokyo firebombing more: e.g. Operation Meetinghouse. A single air raid killed over 10,000 people, more than died at Hiroshima. If the war had continued, it is inconceivable that deaths would have been less than the nuclear attacks sadly caused, on both sides.
Camilla Long is very hard to dupe - in her STimes piece, she said Batman was extremely plausible and it was hard not to be carried along with her/notice the large gaps/lack of evidence of her claims.
"Until February 2015, when The Spectator published my article on Kids Company, not a single bad word about it or its chief executive Camila Batmanghelidjh had appeared in the mainstream media.
This may seem surprising now, as the scale of the scandal surrounding the now-defunct charity unfolds, but for the best part of 20 years it was treated by journalists and politicians with a reverence which I believe it had not merited for a long time."
I'm not really sure how a Larger Than Life character with Unique and Colourful Clothing working in the Childrens Charity Sector is not a red flag these days.
Or is the misandry in the UK now so entrenched that only men raise flags.
As an aside, while I knew that the Japanese Imperial Army was brutal, I didn't realise just how brutal until I read Hastings' book. His account of what they did during the battle for Manila is absolutely nauseating.
Camilla Long is very hard to dupe - in her STimes piece, she said Batman was extremely plausible and it was hard not to be carried along with her/notice the large gaps/lack of evidence of her claims.
"Until February 2015, when The Spectator published my article on Kids Company, not a single bad word about it or its chief executive Camila Batmanghelidjh had appeared in the mainstream media.
This may seem surprising now, as the scale of the scandal surrounding the now-defunct charity unfolds, but for the best part of 20 years it was treated by journalists and politicians with a reverence which I believe it had not merited for a long time."
Having not looked previously - I have just taken a quick look at the official annual accounts available. 2013 is the most recent year, and just ignore the 1st 50 pages of guff and look at the actual accounts. (http://kidsco.org.uk/download/Annual_Report_2013.compressed.pdf). What is interesting is the Note-23 on 'Going Concern'
As the charity has no endowed funds, the level of activities in the financial year starting 1 January 2014 will depend almost entirely on its ability to secure continuing grant income. Whilst significant grants have been awarded, the organisation continues to grow very fast, and has low reserves relative to its size. The Charity’s history of delivering the maximum possible charitable objectives with the resources available has often put a strain on the Charity’s cash flow. The Trustees are confident sufficient funding will be secured and are monitoring the situation. The Trustees consider that debts will continue to be paid as they fall due.
It is easy to say in hindsight - but this reads like a massive red flag to me - 'low reserves', 'often put a strain on cash flow', 'confident sufficient funding will be secured' (and if it's not!)
"London’s image as gay-friendly is dented today by a poll showing people in the capital are less likely than other Britons to be supportive of a gay or transgender child.
A YouGov poll for PinkNews found Londoners over five times more likely than Scots or Northerners to say they would reject a gay child.
PinkNews chief executive Benjamin Cohen commented: “This polling is eye-opening as it goes against the widely accepted notion that London is the most tolerant part of the country when it comes to LGBT issues.
“Beyond the liberal, metropolitan elite, there are clearly many people in the capital who would react negatively to their child being gay or transgender. This shows the need for greater support structures, education and awareness to help families foster an environment that allows children to come out comfortably.” "
"London’s image as gay-friendly is dented today by a poll showing people in the capital are less likely than other Britons to be supportive of a gay or transgender child.
A YouGov poll for PinkNews found Londoners over five times more likely than Scots or Northerners to say they would reject a gay child.
PinkNews chief executive Benjamin Cohen commented: “This polling is eye-opening as it goes against the widely accepted notion that London is the most tolerant part of the country when it comes to LGBT issues.
“Beyond the liberal, metropolitan elite, there are clearly many people in the capital who would react negatively to their child being gay or transgender. This shows the need for greater support structures, education and awareness to help families foster an environment that allows children to come out comfortably.” "
"London’s image as gay-friendly is dented today by a poll showing people in the capital are less likely than other Britons to be supportive of a gay or transgender child.
A YouGov poll for PinkNews found Londoners over five times more likely than Scots or Northerners to say they would reject a gay child.
PinkNews chief executive Benjamin Cohen commented: “This polling is eye-opening as it goes against the widely accepted notion that London is the most tolerant part of the country when it comes to LGBT issues.
“Beyond the liberal, metropolitan elite, there are clearly many people in the capital who would react negatively to their child being gay or transgender. This shows the need for greater support structures, education and awareness to help families foster an environment that allows children to come out comfortably.” "
No apparent crossbreaks for religious or ethnic background, which would have been more enlightening (I suspect).
When this was brought up a few months ago, I pointed out it is based on a sub-sample of less than 200 Londoners.
And we all know reading too much into sub-samples is the road to madness, next you'll be saying Hannibal was a decent strategist, and Zama was a great victory for Carthage
Once again, my TV was lucky to survive after watching Victoria Derbyshire for about 10 mins whilst I had my porridge. There was some "gobby" woman on talking about Kids' Company and how wonderful they were. Then she set off on a rant about David Cameron:
1. he was responsible for the padlocked gates 2. he was responsible for returning the country to Victorian times, with all these children becoming "street urchins" 3. if any of these children now get abused, it's all his fault 4. etc, etc, etc
no interruptions, or counter-arguments from VD of course. If the government don't do something about the BBC this parliament, then they never will.
...and in a parallel universe a Labour voter is saying how biased Sky are to the Tories and how they prefer the more balanced reporting of the BBC
To be honest, I don't really watch any particular news channel or read a particular paper, so don't know.. I agree the BBC is probably biased to the left, but I would expect a state broadcaster to be in all honesty. It could be a lot worse.
I was just making the point that most people think that opinions that agree with their own are balanced/correct while those that don't, aren't. Same as when you get "Dan Hodges on the money again" from people centrists/Blairites/Cameroons. It doesn't really need to be said, all you are really saying is "Dan Hodges agrees with me and I think I am right". I would say I do the same with Peter Hitchens, I think he is bang on the money most of the time.. by pure coincidence he says what I want to hear
The BBC didn't used to be biased to the left, even when Thatcher was PM.
"London’s image as gay-friendly is dented today by a poll showing people in the capital are less likely than other Britons to be supportive of a gay or transgender child.
A YouGov poll for PinkNews found Londoners over five times more likely than Scots or Northerners to say they would reject a gay child.
PinkNews chief executive Benjamin Cohen commented: “This polling is eye-opening as it goes against the widely accepted notion that London is the most tolerant part of the country when it comes to LGBT issues.
“Beyond the liberal, metropolitan elite, there are clearly many people in the capital who would react negatively to their child being gay or transgender. This shows the need for greater support structures, education and awareness to help families foster an environment that allows children to come out comfortably.” "
That's really sad - I don't understand people who'd reject their own child because of those reasons.
Does the poll merely suggest they would be unhappy, (which would be true of plenty of parents) or does it suggest they'd chuck them out (which would be much less common)?
Edit: In fact the poll suggests that the vast majority of parents of gay children (even those who were unhappy about it) would be supportive of them.
No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I have always had real problems in understanding why President Truman had any choice but to use the atomic bomb.
It had been developed at truly staggering expense. It was a chance to finish an exceptionally brutal war and save millions of lives. And was it really that much worse than the fire bombing of Tokyo (or Dresden)?
I have read a few biographies of Truman and I don't think there is much evidence that he gave it a second's thought. And quite right too.
I think it was Churchill who said that 'moderation in war is the definition of imbecility' - Truman's choice was very simple - hundreds of thousands of dead Japanese, or that plus hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.....
"London’s image as gay-friendly is dented today by a poll showing people in the capital are less likely than other Britons to be supportive of a gay or transgender child.
A YouGov poll for PinkNews found Londoners over five times more likely than Scots or Northerners to say they would reject a gay child.
PinkNews chief executive Benjamin Cohen commented: “This polling is eye-opening as it goes against the widely accepted notion that London is the most tolerant part of the country when it comes to LGBT issues.
“Beyond the liberal, metropolitan elite, there are clearly many people in the capital who would react negatively to their child being gay or transgender. This shows the need for greater support structures, education and awareness to help families foster an environment that allows children to come out comfortably.” "
That's really sad - I don't understand people who'd reject their own child because of those reasons.
Does the poll merely suggest they would be unhappy, (which would be true of plenty of parents) or does it suggest they'd chuck them out (which would be much less common)?
They asked two questions, would you be happy/unhappy if you had a gay kid.
They then asked if you would support your gay child/you would Not support your gay child.
I've seen a couple of good docus about Hiroshima on ITV and More4.
What I found disturbing was the US' conduct after the effects of radiation poisoning [from drinking the black dust water] started to become apparent. The US commanders on the ground treated the victims like lab rats and didn't try to treat them. Rows and rows of dying left to expire.
Few knew much about A-bomb radiation poisoning/cancers at the time and data gathering was the priority.
Small bit of trivia - the John Wayne film , The Conquerer was filmed downwind of a key A-bomb testing site [11 above ground detonations], and it's been claimed that the radioactive fall-out in the desert dust was responsible for a high incidence of cancers in the cast and crew.
Dr. Robert Pendleton, professor of biology at the University of Utah, stated, "With these numbers, this case could qualify as an epidemic. The connection between fallout radiation and cancer in individual cases has been practically impossible to prove conclusively. But in a group this size you'd expect only 30-some cancers to develop. With 91 cancer cases, I think the tie-in to their exposure on the set of The Conqueror would hold up in a court of law." Indeed, several cast and crew members, as well as relatives of those who died, considered suing the government for negligence, claiming it knew more about the hazards in the area than it let on.[12][15]
I listened in a little earlier, and wish they had mentioned the Tokyo firebombing more: e.g. Operation Meetinghouse. A single air raid killed over 10,000 people, more than died at Hiroshima. If the war had continued, it is inconceivable that deaths would have been less than the nuclear attacks sadly caused, on both sides.
No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I have always had real problems in understanding why President Truman had any choice but to use the atomic bomb.
It had been developed at truly staggering expense. It was a chance to finish an exceptionally brutal war and save millions of lives. And was it really that much worse than the fire bombing of Tokyo (or Dresden)?
I have read a few biographies of Truman and I don't think there is much evidence that he gave it a second's thought. And quite right too.
I think it was Churchill who said that 'moderation in war is the definition of imbecility' - Truman's choice was very simple - hundreds of thousands of dead Japanese, or that plus hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.....
I think the moderation in war is imbecility quote was actually from Admiral John Fisher.
No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I have always had real problems in understanding why President Truman had any choice but to use the atomic bomb.
It had been developed at truly staggering expense. It was a chance to finish an exceptionally brutal war and save millions of lives. And was it really that much worse than the fire bombing of Tokyo (or Dresden)?
I have read a few biographies of Truman and I don't think there is much evidence that he gave it a second's thought. And quite right too.
I think it was Churchill who said that 'moderation in war is the definition of imbecility' - Truman's choice was very simple - hundreds of thousands of dead Japanese, or that plus hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.....
As an aside, while I knew that the Japanese Imperial Army was brutal, I didn't realise just how brutal until I read Hastings' book. His account of what they did during the battle for Manila is absolutely nauseating.
The stuff unit 731 did was pretty wowing too.
One of the things that always struck me was the photographs of Japanese cities bombed by conventional bombing, and the damage caused at Hiroshima.
Because most Japanese buildings were made out of wood, they were easily destroyed, so you couldn't tell which were bombed by conventional bombing and which was taken out by an atomic bomb
No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I have always had real problems in understanding why President Truman had any choice but to use the atomic bomb.
It had been developed at truly staggering expense. It was a chance to finish an exceptionally brutal war and save millions of lives. And was it really that much worse than the fire bombing of Tokyo (or Dresden)?
I have read a few biographies of Truman and I don't think there is much evidence that he gave it a second's thought. And quite right too.
I think it was Churchill who said that 'moderation in war is the definition of imbecility' - Truman's choice was very simple - hundreds of thousands of dead Japanese, or that plus hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.....
I think the moderation in war is imbecility quote was actually from Admiral John Fisher.
Few societies practice Total War (the fighting on the Eastern Front came closest). Total War would mean executing the entire adult male population of the country you were fighting against. To that extent, moderation in war is both widespread and sensible.
But, there really isn't much of an argument against the use of the A-bombs.
Tactless to remember this story on this day, but it does worry me about the poor knowledge some of our MPs have.
Finally (thanks to Iain Macintosh), Daniel Finkelstein in Saturday's Times (pay wall), recalls William Hague's visit to Japan:
He went with a group of MPs, and one of them had a pressing question to ask the mayor of Hiroshima. “Everywhere else we’ve been in Japan,” said the MP, “the streets have been higgledy-piggledy. Yet here in Hiroshima your streets are laid out in a well-organised grid. How did you achieve that?”
The mayor paused and quietly responded: “We had some help. From the Americans.”
No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I have always had real problems in understanding why President Truman had any choice but to use the atomic bomb.
It had been developed at truly staggering expense. It was a chance to finish an exceptionally brutal war and save millions of lives. And was it really that much worse than the fire bombing of Tokyo (or Dresden)?
I have read a few biographies of Truman and I don't think there is much evidence that he gave it a second's thought. And quite right too.
I think it was Churchill who said that 'moderation in war is the definition of imbecility' - Truman's choice was very simple - hundreds of thousands of dead Japanese, or that plus hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.....
I think the moderation in war is imbecility quote was actually from Admiral John Fisher.
Quite right!
"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility" -British Sea Lord John Fisher
That and 'Scrap the lot' when presented with a list of dozens of elderly warships
Edit - and: Fisher is credited by the Oxford English Dictionary with the earliest known use of the phrase "OMG" as an abbreviation for "Oh my God", in a letter of 9 September 1917. In Fisher's case it was "Oh! My God!
No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I have always had real problems in understanding why President Truman had any choice but to use the atomic bomb.
It had been developed at truly staggering expense. It was a chance to finish an exceptionally brutal war and save millions of lives. And was it really that much worse than the fire bombing of Tokyo (or Dresden)?
I have read a few biographies of Truman and I don't think there is much evidence that he gave it a second's thought. And quite right too.
I think it was Churchill who said that 'moderation in war is the definition of imbecility' - Truman's choice was very simple - hundreds of thousands of dead Japanese, or that plus hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.....
I think the moderation in war is imbecility quote was actually from Admiral John Fisher.
Few societies practice Total War (the fighting on the Eastern Front came closest). Total War would mean executing the entire adult male population of the country you were fighting against. To that extent, moderation in war is both widespread and sensible.
But, there really isn't much of an argument against the use of the A-bombs.
Except, perhaps, that a lot of people died from radiation long after hostilities ceased?
Few societies practice Total War (the fighting on the Eastern Front came closest). Total War would mean executing the entire adult male population of the country you were fighting against. To that extent, moderation in war is both widespread and sensible.
But, there really isn't much of an argument against the use of the A-bombs.
Except, perhaps, that a lot of people died from radiation long after hostilities ceased?
But, is that worse than people dying while the Allies conquer the Japanese Empire, or wait for the Japanese to surrender?
An interesting conundrum for the Labour leadership candidates. Do they complain about the Government giving away £3 million of taxpayers money to the useless Kids Company, or complain that the Government have left thousands of kid's in the lurch by not giving them more?
Or more likely, and Jezza excepted, wait for a focus group.
Comments
So Osborne and Balls could offer exactly the same policy on public spending - but only Osborne has the level of trust required by the markets and public to do it 'safely'. Balls/Labour failed to establish their chops here and the voters/markets would view it as more evidence of their inability to be thrifty.
Perception is everything here.
Labour must take this on.Our economy and public services need immigration to survive,the mean reason being we are living longer.36% of NHS doctors are immigrants.Do people really want to throw them all out? Do you really want to shoot your foot off?
Interesting stats, but they may also be white noise.
What matters isn't whether people back leaving the EU or bringing back hanging, nationalising goldfish or banning profits, but what they vote on. All the rest is peripheral.
What counts are policies that attract people, or that really put them off.
Every now and then some Guardian journos get it. There should be some way for the dead to get redress when they are the victims of libel and slander.
For example, I would be interested to know whether people on zero hours contracts were as hostile to them as the general public.
In the same way, when we apologise to dead people we're not doing anything for them. We're doing it for us - to send a message or to make ourselves feel good about whatever it is we're doing. Very rarely does an apology do any good and then only when it is to those remaining who have suffered because of what's happened e.g. Cameron following the Savile report on Bloody Sunday and to the families of those who died at Hillsborough.
If anything, I think it is good that once people are dead the laws of defamation don't apply because it is usually only then that things which have not been said out of fear of a lawsuit are said e.g. Jimmy Savile, Maxwell etc. Our libel laws are chilling enough as it is without extending them to dead people.
Even then its doing to be uphill, remember the British Social Attitude Survey last year, 76% want to reduce immigration, 52% want to reduce it by a lot, that's a hell of a hill to climb even if you have credibility on the issue. 76% in a survey is up there in "are kittens cute" territory.
If, for instance, John Lennon were accused of something terrible* such that it damaged the value of the Beatles brand, surely there should be some mechanism for redress?
(* apart from bad signing and falsely claiming credit for lyrics, that is)
Plus I've read the Japanese were digging themselves in for what would have been an utterly dreadful, down to the last person type defence of their islands.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/series/60280.html
Most recent appears to be (of all unlikely trios) Chris Lewis (6-111) Phil Tufnell (6-25) and Phil DeFreitas (7-70), in 1991: 4th and 5th Tests against the Windies and a one-off against Sri Lanka. Syd Lawrence also took five wickets in the fifth test.
Scorecards here and here.
If they can set a lead of 100, they'll put even more records in the way of Australia.
EDIT: Hang on, they aren't in successive innings are they?
Operations Olympic and Coronet were planned (the invasion of Japan proper), but the projected casualty figures were horrific.
Links relating to other things we've been discussing:
Greece - nearing the endgame?
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/tsipras-says-greece-final-stretch-deal-creditors-316806?utm_source=EurActiv+Newsletter&utm_campaign=cc2df038fd-newsletter_uk_in_europe&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-cc2df038fd-245514803
Corbyn - the case I was putting yesterday, rather better exaplnied (though I have my doubts about how successfully we can mobilise the youth vote):
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/06/jeremy-corbyn-prime-minister-labour-leadership
1. he was responsible for the padlocked gates
2. he was responsible for returning the country to Victorian times, with all these children
becoming "street urchins"
3. if any of these children now get abused, it's all his fault
4. etc, etc, etc
no interruptions, or counter-arguments from VD of course. If the government don't do something about the BBC this parliament, then they never will.
It also remains to be seen just what the endgame is. Leaving the eurozone is one obvious example, but could the eurozone rush through integration measures instead? Could it be massive writing off of debt?
I watch Sky News, ITN and very occasionally C5. If someone points out a bun-fight - I'll tune into C4 News.
The contrast is so marked.
Snigger.
If you want to check for any others (I didn't have the energy to go through them all) the list of 6-fors for England is here.
Hmm, dedication beyond the call of Duty or just really poor mobile phone reception?
England have yet to make Australia pay big time for their dreadful start.
If you doubt me, remember the Russell Brand silliness a few months ago and how much it helped Labour.
The invasion of Kyushu alone was projected to cost 450k US casualties, and Lord knows how many Japanese civilians would have died. I think this tends to be forgotten nowadays.
'The war situation has developed; not necessarily to Japan's advantage.'
I was just making the point that most people think that opinions that agree with their own are balanced/correct while those that don't, aren't. Same as when you get "Dan Hodges on the money again" from people centrists/Blairites/Cameroons. It doesn't really need to be said, all you are really saying is "Dan Hodges agrees with me and I think I am right". I would say I do the same with Peter Hitchens, I think he is bang on the money most of the time.. by pure coincidence he says what I want to hear
It's hard to argue that the Allies should have dropped their demand for unconditional surrender, and accepted Japanese peace terms.
Prolonging the war would have meant prolonging the suffering of Allied POWs and Chinese suffering at Japanese hands.
I liked his work with U2 though.
This may seem surprising now, as the scale of the scandal surrounding the now-defunct charity unfolds, but for the best part of 20 years it was treated by journalists and politicians with a reverence which I believe it had not merited for a long time."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/the-inside-story-of-how-the-spectator-broke-the-kids-company-scandal/
"London’s image as gay-friendly is dented today by a poll showing people in the capital are less likely than other Britons to be supportive of a gay or transgender child.
A YouGov poll for PinkNews found Londoners over five times more likely than Scots or Northerners to say they would reject a gay child.
PinkNews chief executive Benjamin Cohen commented: “This polling is eye-opening as it goes against the widely accepted notion that London is the most tolerant part of the country when it comes to LGBT issues.
“Beyond the liberal, metropolitan elite, there are clearly many people in the capital who would react negatively to their child being gay or transgender. This shows the need for greater support structures, education and awareness to help families foster an environment that allows children to come out comfortably.” "
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/londoners-less-likely-than-other-brits-to-support-gay-or-transgender-children-poll-shows-10119293.html
It had been developed at truly staggering expense. It was a chance to finish an exceptionally brutal war and save millions of lives. And was it really that much worse than the fire bombing of Tokyo (or Dresden)?
I have read a few biographies of Truman and I don't think there is much evidence that he gave it a second's thought. And quite right too.
Like you, I find it hard to see any real argument against using the atomic bombs. More people died when Curtis Le May firebombed Tokyo.
All the wars since then: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, have not used up that stock. In fact, they still have 120,000 left.
Think about that for a moment: the US expected the invasion to cost more of their casualties than all the wars they have been part of since, and more.
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1801
I listened in a little earlier, and wish they had mentioned the Tokyo firebombing more: e.g. Operation Meetinghouse. A single air raid killed over 10,000 people, more than died at Hiroshima. If the war had continued, it is inconceivable that deaths would have been less than the nuclear attacks sadly caused, on both sides.
Or is the misandry in the UK now so entrenched that only men raise flags.
And we all know reading too much into sub-samples is the road to madness, next you'll be saying Hannibal was a decent strategist, and Zama was a great victory for Carthage
33% of Kippers would be unhappy if they had a gay kid, whereas 29% of Londoners would be unhappy.
http://bit.ly/1KTh989
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2969624/Margaret-Thatcher-wanted-BBC-furious-treacherous-reporting-Falklands-War-official-history-reveals.html
Edit: In fact the poll suggests that the vast majority of parents of gay children (even those who were unhappy about it) would be supportive of them.
They then asked if you would support your gay child/you would Not support your gay child.
What I found disturbing was the US' conduct after the effects of radiation poisoning [from drinking the black dust water] started to become apparent. The US commanders on the ground treated the victims like lab rats and didn't try to treat them. Rows and rows of dying left to expire.
Few knew much about A-bomb radiation poisoning/cancers at the time and data gathering was the priority.
Small bit of trivia - the John Wayne film , The Conquerer was filmed downwind of a key A-bomb testing site [11 above ground detonations], and it's been claimed that the radioactive fall-out in the desert dust was responsible for a high incidence of cancers in the cast and crew.
One of the things that always struck me was the photographs of Japanese cities bombed by conventional bombing, and the damage caused at Hiroshima.
Because most Japanese buildings were made out of wood, they were easily destroyed, so you couldn't tell which were bombed by conventional bombing and which was taken out by an atomic bomb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Project
Few societies practice Total War (the fighting on the Eastern Front came closest). Total War would mean executing the entire adult male population of the country you were fighting against. To that extent, moderation in war is both widespread and sensible.
But, there really isn't much of an argument against the use of the A-bombs.
Finally (thanks to Iain Macintosh), Daniel Finkelstein in Saturday's Times (pay wall), recalls William Hague's visit to Japan:
He went with a group of MPs, and one of them had a pressing question to ask the mayor of Hiroshima. “Everywhere else we’ve been in Japan,” said the MP, “the streets have been higgledy-piggledy. Yet here in Hiroshima your streets are laid out in a well-organised grid. How did you achieve that?”
The mayor paused and quietly responded: “We had some help. From the Americans.”
http://ind.pn/1M7Z5WJ
"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility"
-British Sea Lord John Fisher
That and 'Scrap the lot' when presented with a list of dozens of elderly warships
Edit - and: Fisher is credited by the Oxford English Dictionary with the earliest known use of the phrase "OMG" as an abbreviation for "Oh my God", in a letter of 9 September 1917. In Fisher's case it was "Oh! My God!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#Africa
Or more likely, and Jezza excepted, wait for a focus group.