There was bound to be an independent inquiry into corona. It's killed 60,000 people and trashed the economy. The idea that there WOULDN'T be an inquiry is the outlier.
Yes, but the questions are: when, with what scope, chaired by whom, and with what powers?
I'd like to point out that Owen Jones has been through approximately 10,000x as much shit as Bari Weiss, including being physically assaulted, and doesn't think it's "impossible to do his job"
And no one gives him credit for "surviving cancel culture"
I think that is a rather bizarre comment. Jones may deserve credit for bravery and courage in dealing with hostility but it's not something he experiences from his employer - unless the Guardian is quite different to what I thought it was.
The Weiss case seems more analogous to Peter Oborne when he left the Telegraph. Perhaps we need to stop treating newspapers as the fourth estate and 24 hour news might be making them redundant. Weekly/monthly magazines might be a better model for the future.
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
Not at all. Although soon to be LD leader Davey drew the most blood!
Yes, Davey managed to get this commitment. He seems to have a similar technique to Starmer, in steering government policy by exploiting Johnsons willingness to give off the cuff commitments at PMQs. It is a quite effective technique for a tag team.
Davey started off with his underwhelming tone, and Johnson, like me must have thought, oh here we go again, same old nonsense from Davey. Then almost before Davey had finished, Johnson had conceded an independent enquiry. I am not sure who was most surprised by the reply Davey or Johnson.
There was bound to be an independent inquiry into corona. It's killed 60,000 people and trashed the economy. The idea that there WOULDN'T be an inquiry is the outlier.
Au contraire!
An enquiry is in Johnson's gift, and today he gave. Granted, Cummings writes the terms and conditions, but it was a concession in principle nonetheless.
I'm never been exactly sure if my own Boris-style height of about 5 9 and a half is considered "average" or "short". I have some friends of this stature who look "tall" and others who are considered diminutive. I notice in Italy many men are shorter than me.
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
Not at all. Although soon to be LD leader Davey drew the most blood!
Yes, Davey managed to get this commitment. He seems to have a similar technique to Starmer, in steering government policy by exploiting Johnsons willingness to give off the cuff commitments at PMQs. It is a quite effective technique for a tag team.
Davey started off with his underwhelming tone, and Johnson, like me must have thought, oh here we go again, same old nonsense from Davey. Then almost before Davey had finished, Johnson had conceded an independent enquiry. I am not sure who was most surprised by the reply Davey or Johnson.
There was bound to be an independent inquiry into corona. It's killed 60,000 people and trashed the economy. The idea that there WOULDN'T be an inquiry is the outlier.
Maybe we should just accept that this is a once in every 50 years occurrence that we have to cope with as best we can.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
Understood. All OK. I meant it when I said no big deal. But that "Frog" was very jarring in that post. You were writing it before noon and it was part of a very sober and serious conversation with Topping about tourism and London. And then, all of sudden, there it was - Frog.
But you write a lot of posts, tbf, and you can't be word perfect in every one. Bet you would edit it, though, if you could. Can we just say that?
And as a matter of interest. Kiwi vs Frog - my post to Foxy at 12.28 - do you feel the same as me that there's a difference? That Frog is a little more risque than Kiwi?
No. I see no real difference between Kiwi and Frog and no I wouldn't edit it.
I suppose there's a small technical difference in that the Kiwis refer to themselves as that and its their national bird and on their All Blacks jerseys etc . . . but no as a national nickname I see no difference.
A "small technical" difference because they like to call themselves that and it's their beloved national bird and it's on the shirts of their beloved flagship sports team.
Indeed -
We can move on now if you like. I'm certainly happy to.
Actually I made a rare mistake and must hold my hands up, Foxy was right to pick me up on that. Its the silver fern on their shirts not the Kiwi.
Frogs legs in garlic is a delicious French cuisine, I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't tried it yet.
Kiwi on the Rugby League shirt. Their nickname too. An understandable mistake as I recall you hail from Warrington?
I wonder what name the French Rugby League team go by?
If it's "The Frogs" I will go back and delete all my posts on this thread.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
Understood. All OK. I meant it when I said no big deal. But that "Frog" was very jarring in that post. You were writing it before noon and it was part of a very sober and serious conversation with Topping about tourism and London. And then, all of sudden, there it was - Frog.
But you write a lot of posts, tbf, and you can't be word perfect in every one. Bet you would edit it, though, if you could. Can we just say that?
And as a matter of interest. Kiwi vs Frog - my post to Foxy at 12.28 - do you feel the same as me that there's a difference? That Frog is a little more risque than Kiwi?
No. I see no real difference between Kiwi and Frog and no I wouldn't edit it.
I suppose there's a small technical difference in that the Kiwis refer to themselves as that and its their national bird and on their All Blacks jerseys etc . . . but no as a national nickname I see no difference.
A "small technical" difference because they like to call themselves that and it's their beloved national bird and it's on the shirts of their beloved flagship sports team.
Indeed -
We can move on now if you like. I'm certainly happy to.
Actually I made a rare mistake and must hold my hands up, Foxy was right to pick me up on that. Its the silver fern on their shirts not the Kiwi.
Frogs legs in garlic is a delicious French cuisine, I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't tried it yet.
Kiwi on the Rugby League shirt. Their nickname too. An understandable mistake as I recall you hail from Warrington?
I wonder what name the French Rugby League team go by?
If it's "The Frogs" I will go back and delete all my posts on this thread.
A Wealth Tax is an exciting prospect. But will a Conservative government really do that? One for the 'believe it when I see it' basket.
Just like my argument on CGT on residential properties it does seem to be a very anti Conservative thing to do, so would be a bold move.
I also think a wealth tax would be difficult to implement.
There is a need to tap into wealth - of which there is oodles - if we are to maintain the sort of public realm we have become used to.
Your CGT on homes makes sense imo but it has next to no chance of happening because of the way we view home ownership here. There's a strong intellectual and moral case for it though.
I'm not really sure about that.
They used to think that mortgage tax relief was untouchable for political reasons. Then it went.
Main dwellings are treated as an investment - used for raising finance, saving for retirement, supporting children etc. As such there is not much reason to keep the unearned gains tax free.
Consider that one George Osborne has just trousered £3.1m of gains for which he has not done an hour's work. Is it really unacceptable that that should only be say £2.5m of unearned gains after tax rather than £3.1m?
I think the strategic clincher is that the £25-30bn of lost tax due to the allowance is overwhelmingly handed to the wealthier people in the wealthier areas of the country.
How will that play in the Red Wall when pointed out, and perhaps combined with a more generous CGT Allowance or reintroduction of indexation?
Personally I would abolish it at a stroke, but perhaps an initial cut followed by death on the vine is an alternative.
Mortgage tax relief was also on my mind when untouchable was mentioned. It was one of those things that everyone thought they had a right to for no logical reason.
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
Not at all. Although soon to be LD leader Davey drew the most blood!
Yes, Davey managed to get this commitment. He seems to have a similar technique to Starmer, in steering government policy by exploiting Johnsons willingness to give off the cuff commitments at PMQs. It is a quite effective technique for a tag team.
Davey started off with his underwhelming tone, and Johnson, like me must have thought, oh here we go again, same old nonsense from Davey. Then almost before Davey had finished, Johnson had conceded an independent enquiry. I am not sure who was most surprised by the reply Davey or Johnson.
There was bound to be an independent inquiry into corona. It's killed 60,000 people and trashed the economy. The idea that there WOULDN'T be an inquiry is the outlier.
Au contraire!
An enquiry is in Johnson's gift, and today he gave. Granted, Cummings writes the terms and conditions, but it was a concession in principle nonetheless.
As BluestBlue HYUFD et al keep pointing out, Johnson has a majority of 80 and can do what he likes. He didn't need to give an enquiry - perhaps he hopes it will exonerate him?
There was bound to be an independent inquiry into corona. It's killed 60,000 people and trashed the economy. The idea that there WOULDN'T be an inquiry is the outlier.
Yes, but the questions are: when, with what scope, chaired by whom, and with what powers?
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
Where are these French people who are offended by the word Frog? I don't know any, and I have lived in France and spent a lot of time there. For that matter I don't know a single English person offended by the word Rosbif, which is exactly equivalent.
The indignation about totally harmless informal words is pure Guardianista offence-mining.
There was bound to be an independent inquiry into corona. It's killed 60,000 people and trashed the economy. The idea that there WOULDN'T be an inquiry is the outlier.
Yes, but the questions are: when, with what scope, chaired by whom, and with what powers?
By Dom, with whatever he decides ?
I suspect Dom will be long gone before we get to an inquiry.
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
Not at all. Although soon to be LD leader Davey drew the most blood!
Yes, Davey managed to get this commitment. He seems to have a similar technique to Starmer, in steering government policy by exploiting Johnsons willingness to give off the cuff commitments at PMQs. It is a quite effective technique for a tag team.
Davey started off with his underwhelming tone, and Johnson, like me must have thought, oh here we go again, same old nonsense from Davey. Then almost before Davey had finished, Johnson had conceded an independent enquiry. I am not sure who was most surprised by the reply Davey or Johnson.
There was bound to be an independent inquiry into corona. It's killed 60,000 people and trashed the economy. The idea that there WOULDN'T be an inquiry is the outlier.
Au contraire!
An enquiry is in Johnson's gift, and today he gave. Granted, Cummings writes the terms and conditions, but it was a concession in principle nonetheless.
Boris doesn't give a feck. This will justifiably be kicked into the longest of grasses, on the grounds that we cannot assess our response to Covid until all its consequences have played out - ie in about a decade.
By then Boris will be 66 and doing well-paid speeches in the newly Independent Republic of George Floydia, formerly known as NYC, until it collapsed into ruin, just like London.
If Johnson has indeed been beavering away with discovering the Covid-19 vaccine, which is why he hasn't had time to read the second wave report, it is a big feather in his cap.
If Johnson has indeed been beavering away with discovering the Covid-19 vaccine, which is why he hasn't had time to read the second wave report, it is a big feather in his cap.
I doubt he's doing either of those things. He'd get an executive summary at most.
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
The problem with "Little Englander" was when Cameron used it to rail at the bulk of his supporters....
I'm never been exactly sure if my own Boris-style height of about 5 9 and a half is considered average or short. I have some friends of this stature who somehow look "tall" and others who are considered diminutive. I notice in Italy many men are shorter than me.
There was bound to be an independent inquiry into corona. It's killed 60,000 people and trashed the economy. The idea that there WOULDN'T be an inquiry is the outlier.
Yes, but the questions are: when, with what scope, chaired by whom, and with what powers?
A Wealth Tax is an exciting prospect. But will a Conservative government really do that? One for the 'believe it when I see it' basket.
Just like my argument on CGT on residential properties it does seem to be a very anti Conservative thing to do, so would be a bold move.
I also think a wealth tax would be difficult to implement.
There is a need to tap into wealth - of which there is oodles - if we are to maintain the sort of public realm we have become used to.
Your CGT on homes makes sense imo but it has next to no chance of happening because of the way we view home ownership here. There's a strong intellectual and moral case for it though.
I'm not really sure about that.
They used to think that mortgage tax relief was untouchable for political reasons. Then it went.
Main dwellings are treated as an investment - used for raising finance, saving for retirement, supporting children etc. As such there is not much reason to keep the unearned gains tax free.
Consider that one George Osborne has just trousered £3.1m of gains for which he has not done an hour's work. Is it really unacceptable that that should only be say £2.5m of unearned gains after tax rather than £3.1m?
I think the strategic clincher is that the £25-30bn of lost tax due to the allowance is overwhelmingly handed to the wealthier people in the wealthier areas of the country.
How will that play in the Red Wall when pointed out, and perhaps combined with a more generous CGT Allowance or reintroduction of indexation?
Personally I would abolish it at a stroke, but perhaps an initial cut followed by death on the vine is an alternative.
Indexation is going to kill the idea, there is no way they can reintroduce it without it looking like a massive tax cut for BTL landlords
I'm never been exactly sure if my own Boris-style height of about 5 9 and a half is considered average or short. I have some friends of this stature who somehow look "tall" and others who are considered diminutive. I notice in Italy many men are shorter than me.
5 feet 9 inches is about average for the UK.
Seems about 2 inches shorter in Italy and Greece, in my experience.
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
Where are these French people who are offended by the word Frog? I don't know any, and I have lived in France and spent a lot of time there. For that matter I don't know a single English person offended by the word Rosbif, which is exactly equivalent.
The indignation about totally harmless informal words is pure Guardianista offence-mining.
No offence taken. Frog is in exactly the same context as Rosbif. Until Mr Thompson's earlier intervention I had heard neither since 1974.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
Understood. All OK. I meant it when I said no big deal. But that "Frog" was very jarring in that post. You were writing it before noon and it was part of a very sober and serious conversation with Topping about tourism and London. And then, all of sudden, there it was - Frog.
But you write a lot of posts, tbf, and you can't be word perfect in every one. Bet you would edit it, though, if you could. Can we just say that?
And as a matter of interest. Kiwi vs Frog - my post to Foxy at 12.28 - do you feel the same as me that there's a difference? That Frog is a little more risque than Kiwi?
No. I see no real difference between Kiwi and Frog and no I wouldn't edit it.
I suppose there's a small technical difference in that the Kiwis refer to themselves as that and its their national bird and on their All Blacks jerseys etc . . . but no as a national nickname I see no difference.
A "small technical" difference because they like to call themselves that and it's their beloved national bird and it's on the shirts of their beloved flagship sports team.
Indeed -
We can move on now if you like. I'm certainly happy to.
Actually I made a rare mistake and must hold my hands up, Foxy was right to pick me up on that. Its the silver fern on their shirts not the Kiwi.
Frogs legs in garlic is a delicious French cuisine, I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't tried it yet.
Kiwi on the Rugby League shirt. Their nickname too. An understandable mistake as I recall you hail from Warrington?
I wonder what name the French Rugby League team go by?
If it's "The Frogs" I will go back and delete all my posts on this thread.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
Understood. All OK. I meant it when I said no big deal. But that "Frog" was very jarring in that post. You were writing it before noon and it was part of a very sober and serious conversation with Topping about tourism and London. And then, all of sudden, there it was - Frog.
But you write a lot of posts, tbf, and you can't be word perfect in every one. Bet you would edit it, though, if you could. Can we just say that?
And as a matter of interest. Kiwi vs Frog - my post to Foxy at 12.28 - do you feel the same as me that there's a difference? That Frog is a little more risque than Kiwi?
No. I see no real difference between Kiwi and Frog and no I wouldn't edit it.
I suppose there's a small technical difference in that the Kiwis refer to themselves as that and its their national bird and on their All Blacks jerseys etc . . . but no as a national nickname I see no difference.
A "small technical" difference because they like to call themselves that and it's their beloved national bird and it's on the shirts of their beloved flagship sports team.
Indeed -
We can move on now if you like. I'm certainly happy to.
Actually I made a rare mistake and must hold my hands up, Foxy was right to pick me up on that. Its the silver fern on their shirts not the Kiwi.
Frogs legs in garlic is a delicious French cuisine, I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't tried it yet.
Kiwi on the Rugby League shirt. Their nickname too. An understandable mistake as I recall you hail from Warrington?
I wonder what name the French Rugby League team go by?
If it's "The Frogs" I will go back and delete all my posts on this thread.
Les Chanticleers. So cocks. Or chickens...
The Cocks. I rest my case.
So you are suggesting we should refer to French people as cocks instead?
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
The problem with "Little Englander" was when Cameron used it to rail at the bulk of his supporters....
If Johnson has indeed been beavering away with discovering the Covid-19 vaccine, which is why he hasn't had time to read the second wave report, it is a big feather in his cap.
I doubt he's doing either of those things. He'd get an executive summary at most.
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
Where are these French people who are offended by the word Frog? I don't know any, and I have lived in France and spent a lot of time there. For that matter I don't know a single English person offended by the word Rosbif, which is exactly equivalent.
The indignation about totally harmless informal words is pure Guardianista offence-mining.
No offence taken. Frog is in exactly the same context as Rosbif. Until Mr Thompson's earlier intervention I had heard neither since 1974.
Yes, they are both old-fashioned. But words sometimes come back - I'm delighted that the splendid 'toff', which had all but died out, is now reinstated,
If Johnson has indeed been beavering away with discovering the Covid-19 vaccine, which is why he hasn't had time to read the second wave report, it is a big feather in his cap.
I doubt he's doing either of those things. He'd get an executive summary at most.
But will he read it?
Like I said, an executive summary at most. Or do you really think PMs spend hours and hours reading the hundreds of reports that are written for the government?
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
Where are these French people who are offended by the word Frog? I don't know any, and I have lived in France and spent a lot of time there. For that matter I don't know a single English person offended by the word Rosbif, which is exactly equivalent.
The indignation about totally harmless informal words is pure Guardianista offence-mining.
No offence taken. Frog is in exactly the same context as Rosbif. Until Mr Thompson's earlier intervention I had heard neither since 1974.
I hear Frogs every so often, but it is always used "ironically" - ie in a knowing, supposedly jocular way, by people well aware it is archaic.
Rugby fans use it quite a lot. I have a Welsh friend who takes great pleasure in "beating the Frogs, though not as much as beating the f*cking English." I tell him he's a Taff with an inferiority complex. Etc.
Give the vertically challenged man some credit, he hired the best social media manager on the planet
It's now clear though, why Johnson and Cummings underestimated him.
He does have some great media managers though, as until I saw that lineup shot, I imagined he was quite tall. (If they'd used the shot taken a couple of seconds before, he'd have been on tiptoe to reach over the counter...)
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
Where are these French people who are offended by the word Frog? I don't know any, and I have lived in France and spent a lot of time there. For that matter I don't know a single English person offended by the word Rosbif, which is exactly equivalent.
The indignation about totally harmless informal words is pure Guardianista offence-mining.
No offence taken. Frog is in exactly the same context as Rosbif. Until Mr Thompson's earlier intervention I had heard neither since 1974.
Yes, they are both old-fashioned. But words sometimes come back - I'm delighted that the splendid 'toff', which had all but died out, is now reinstated,
In the 1980s some French people called the English "les fuckings", because of our constant use of the F word. They've stopped doing it now, which is a shame, as it was quite funny
Was surprised to see the PM is only 5 foot 9. He always gives the impression of being a big, strapping bloke.
Muscular even..
While one pound of fat and lean muscle weigh the same, their composition varies immensely. Muscle is much denser than fat, which means muscle occupies less space (volume) in the body compared to fat. Muscle has a leaner appearance due to its high density whereas fat occupies more space (volume) in the body.
Hence why a shortish heavy bloke can look pretty damn good.
Give the vertically challenged man some credit, he hired the best social media manager on the planet
It's now clear though, why Johnson and Cummings underestimated him.
He does have some great media managers though, as until I saw that lineup shot, I imagined he was quite tall. (If they'd used the shot taken a couple of seconds before, he'd have been on tiptoe to reach over the counter...)
Same. Still not convinced this isn't some wind up.
Was surprised to see the PM is only 5 foot 9. He always gives the impression of being a big, strapping bloke.
Muscular even..
While one pound of fat and lean muscle weigh the same, their composition varies immensely. Muscle is much denser than fat, which means muscle occupies less space (volume) in the body compared to fat. Muscle has a leaner appearance due to its high density whereas fat occupies more space (volume) in the body.
Hence why a shortish heavy bloke can look pretty damn good.
Give the vertically challenged man some credit, he hired the best social media manager on the planet
It's now clear though, why Johnson and Cummings underestimated him.
He does have some great media managers though, as until I saw that lineup shot, I imagined he was quite tall. (If they'd used the shot taken a couple of seconds before, he'd have been on tiptoe to reach over the counter...)
Is that an exhalation valve on the mask? IN which case it doesn't protect other people. But I don't know enough about those technicalities to be sure.
Was surprised to see the PM is only 5 foot 9. He always gives the impression of being a big, strapping bloke.
Muscular even..
While one pound of fat and lean muscle weigh the same, their composition varies immensely. Muscle is much denser than fat, which means muscle occupies less space (volume) in the body compared to fat. Muscle has a leaner appearance due to its high density whereas fat occupies more space (volume) in the body.
Hence why a shortish heavy bloke can look pretty damn good. . So it's possible. It's just possible.
Except that in reality Johnson is just an unfit blubbery shortarse.
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
Where are these French people who are offended by the word Frog? I don't know any, and I have lived in France and spent a lot of time there. For that matter I don't know a single English person offended by the word Rosbif, which is exactly equivalent.
The indignation about totally harmless informal words is pure Guardianista offence-mining.
No offence taken. Frog is in exactly the same context as Rosbif. Until Mr Thompson's earlier intervention I had heard neither since 1974.
Yes, they are both old-fashioned. But words sometimes come back - I'm delighted that the splendid 'toff', which had all but died out, is now reinstated,
In my "chip on shoulder" world "Toff" never went away. Ruddy Toffs!
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
Where are these French people who are offended by the word Frog? I don't know any, and I have lived in France and spent a lot of time there. For that matter I don't know a single English person offended by the word Rosbif, which is exactly equivalent.
The indignation about totally harmless informal words is pure Guardianista offence-mining.
No offence taken. Frog is in exactly the same context as Rosbif. Until Mr Thompson's earlier intervention I had heard neither since 1974.
Yes, they are both old-fashioned. But words sometimes come back - I'm delighted that the splendid 'toff', which had all but died out, is now reinstated,
In the 1980s some French people called the English "les fuckings", because of our constant use of the F word. They've stopped doing it now, which is a shame, as it was quite funny
An oddity is the widespread use of The Hun, which is apparently down to Churchill's misconception that the Germans were somehow descended from Atilla.
I'd like to point out that Owen Jones has been through approximately 10,000x as much shit as Bari Weiss, including being physically assaulted, and doesn't think it's "impossible to do his job"
And no one gives him credit for "surviving cancel culture"
I think that is a rather bizarre comment. Jones may deserve credit for bravery and courage in dealing with hostility but it's not something he experiences from his employer - unless the Guardian is quite different to what I thought it was.
The Weiss case seems more analogous to Peter Oborne when he left the Telegraph. Perhaps we need to stop treating newspapers as the fourth estate and 24 hour news might be making them redundant. Weekly/monthly magazines might be a better model for the future.
But it's relevant in that it speaks to the all purpose term that "cancel culture" has become. Much of the time it seems to be people with a platform getting upset about some grief on social media from people who don't have a platform.
"On average, the shortest men can be found in South Asia, where the average height is 165 cm, while the tallest are from Europe and Central Asia, at 177 cm."
If Johnson has indeed been beavering away with discovering the Covid-19 vaccine, which is why he hasn't had time to read the second wave report, it is a big feather in his cap.
I doubt he's doing either of those things. He'd get an executive summary at most.
But will he read it?
Like I said, an executive summary at most. Or do you really think PMs spend hours and hours reading the hundreds of reports that are written for the government?
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
Where are these French people who are offended by the word Frog? I don't know any, and I have lived in France and spent a lot of time there. For that matter I don't know a single English person offended by the word Rosbif, which is exactly equivalent.
The indignation about totally harmless informal words is pure Guardianista offence-mining.
No offence taken. Frog is in exactly the same context as Rosbif. Until Mr Thompson's earlier intervention I had heard neither since 1974.
Yes, they are both old-fashioned. But words sometimes come back - I'm delighted that the splendid 'toff', which had all but died out, is now reinstated,
In the 1980s some French people called the English "les fuckings", because of our constant use of the F word. They've stopped doing it now, which is a shame, as it was quite funny
An oddity is the widespread use of The Hun, which is apparently down to Churchill's misconception that the Germans were somehow descended from Atilla.
It was a Great War term of opprobrium, was it not? I don't think it was solely down to WSC, though he may have perpetuated it ...
"On average, the shortest men can be found in South Asia, where the average height is 165 cm, while the tallest are from Europe and Central Asia, at 177 cm."
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
Where are these French people who are offended by the word Frog? I don't know any, and I have lived in France and spent a lot of time there. For that matter I don't know a single English person offended by the word Rosbif, which is exactly equivalent.
The indignation about totally harmless informal words is pure Guardianista offence-mining.
No offence taken. Frog is in exactly the same context as Rosbif. Until Mr Thompson's earlier intervention I had heard neither since 1974.
Yes, they are both old-fashioned. But words sometimes come back - I'm delighted that the splendid 'toff', which had all but died out, is now reinstated,
In the 1980s some French people called the English "les fuckings", because of our constant use of the F word. They've stopped doing it now, which is a shame, as it was quite funny
An oddity is the widespread use of The Hun, which is apparently down to Churchill's misconception that the Germans were somehow descended from Atilla.
It’s because Wilhelm II compared Germans to Huns during the Boxer rebellion and wanted to create an image of being feared warriors.
If Johnson has indeed been beavering away with discovering the Covid-19 vaccine, which is why he hasn't had time to read the second wave report, it is a big feather in his cap.
I doubt he's doing either of those things. He'd get an executive summary at most.
But will he read it?
Like I said, an executive summary at most. Or do you really think PMs spend hours and hours reading the hundreds of reports that are written for the government?
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
The problem with "Little Englander" was when Cameron used it to rail at the bulk of his supporters....
Nope, just a section at that juncture. Sadly, that section is now the majority in the Johnsonite People's Populist Party (formally known as Conservative).
Little Englander is a very good description, just as "Little Scotlander" is apt for their Scottish equivalents that vote for the SNP. Small minded nationalistic thinking is backward, chippy and lacking in confidence. It is a very "sad" mentality.
An oddity is the widespread use of The Hun, which is apparently down to Churchill's misconception that the Germans were somehow descended from Atilla.
I doubt if it's anything to do with Churchill. More likely it came into popular usage because of this 1914 poem (widely misinterpreted, like much Kipling):
I’m a Kiwi. We Kiwis call ourselves Kiwis. Personally I find it slightly kitsch, but not at all offensive.
Frogs is clearly derogatory.
Philip Thomson is a very effective troll. One presumes he is on furlough given the amount of time he spends toxifying the PB threads.
Bang.
Although I don't find Philip a troll. There is occasionally lead in his pencil.
Quite. Someone disagreeing with you isn't the definition of a troll
Every so often he drifts onto the right side of history. In fact I think that applies to every poster on here. I can't think of a single one who is always 100% of the time flat out wrong. A couple come close but nobody quite manages it.
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
The problem with "Little Englander" was when Cameron used it to rail at the bulk of his supporters....
Nope, just a section at that juncture. Sadly, that section is now the majority in the Johnsonite People's Populist Party (formally known as Conservative).
Little Englander is a very good description, just as "Little Scotlander" is apt for their Scottish equivalents that vote for the SNP. Small minded nationalistic thinking is backward, chippy and lacking in confidence. It is a very "sad" mentality.
I'll get the pedantry in first...realised the apostrophe was in the wrong place after I posted dammit!
Look, I am on the Trump toast train but it is unarguable that more people are excited to vote FOR Trump than they are FOR Biden. True vastly more people are firm ion wanting to vote AGAINST Trump than Biden but the question that I don't think is answered is what is a better motivating force in a Presidential Election rather than a midterm
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
Where are these French people who are offended by the word Frog? I don't know any, and I have lived in France and spent a lot of time there. For that matter I don't know a single English person offended by the word Rosbif, which is exactly equivalent.
The indignation about totally harmless informal words is pure Guardianista offence-mining.
No offence taken. Frog is in exactly the same context as Rosbif. Until Mr Thompson's earlier intervention I had heard neither since 1974.
Yes, they are both old-fashioned. But words sometimes come back - I'm delighted that the splendid 'toff', which had all but died out, is now reinstated,
In the 1980s some French people called the English "les fuckings", because of our constant use of the F word. They've stopped doing it now, which is a shame, as it was quite funny
An oddity is the widespread use of The Hun, which is apparently down to Churchill's misconception that the Germans were somehow descended from Atilla.
It was a Great War term of opprobrium, was it not? I don't think it was solely down to WSC, though he may have perpetuated it ...
"Frogs are slightly better than wops or huns" - Uncle Matthew in Nancy Mitford, Pursuit of Love - published 1945, but Uncle M's views and vocab date from WW1.
Look, I am on the Trump toast train but it is unarguable that more people are excited to vote FOR Trump than they are FOR Biden. True vastly more people are firm ion wanting to vote AGAINST Trump than Biden but the question that I don't think is answered is what is a better motivating force in a Presidential Election rather than a midterm
An oddity is the widespread use of The Hun, which is apparently down to Churchill's misconception that the Germans were somehow descended from Atilla.
I doubt if it's anything to do with Churchill. More likely it came into popular usage because of this 1914 poem (widely misinterpreted, like much Kipling):
Thanks Richard, that's interesting, but I think Churchill is implicated somewhere. Maybe he picked it up uncritically from Kipling. I'm sure he uses the term in his WW2 volumes, but I don't want to look it up in case I am wrong.
I'm never been exactly sure if my own Boris-style height of about 5 9 and a half is considered average or short. I have some friends of this stature who somehow look "tall" and others who are considered diminutive. I notice in Italy many men are shorter than me.
5 feet 9 inches is about average for the UK.
Seems about 2 inches shorter in Italy and Greece, in my experience.
And about 2 inches taller in lanky north Germany (the shorter, fatter Germans are mostly Bavarians). One plus about returning to the UK was being able to see over the heads of crowds again instead of feeling like a midget.
Really. It's like the BBC is intent on self harm. Like it *wants* to get defunded.
Don't the stats show they are already more diverse than the country?
Not when it comes to diversity of thought . . .
I've thought for a while that the BBC was heading into trouble - its model is unsustainable in the era of streaming. For the first time, I think its demise will come quite soon, maybe in the next decade.
All the Tories have to do is decriminalise non-licence-fee-paying. Then that's it. Everything collapses. It is a perfectly legitimate move, on moral grounds, and it instantly demolishes an institution which is hellbent on annoying anyone remotely conservative.
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
Where are these French people who are offended by the word Frog? I don't know any, and I have lived in France and spent a lot of time there. For that matter I don't know a single English person offended by the word Rosbif, which is exactly equivalent.
The indignation about totally harmless informal words is pure Guardianista offence-mining.
No offence taken. Frog is in exactly the same context as Rosbif. Until Mr Thompson's earlier intervention I had heard neither since 1974.
Yes, they are both old-fashioned. But words sometimes come back - I'm delighted that the splendid 'toff', which had all but died out, is now reinstated,
In the 1980s some French people called the English "les fuckings", because of our constant use of the F word. They've stopped doing it now, which is a shame, as it was quite funny
An oddity is the widespread use of The Hun, which is apparently down to Churchill's misconception that the Germans were somehow descended from Atilla.
It was a Great War term of opprobrium, was it not? I don't think it was solely down to WSC, though he may have perpetuated it ...
The origin of the term was a reference to Attila the Hun in Wilhelm II's "Hun speech" (Hunnenrede) delivered on 27 July 1900, when he bade farewell to the German expeditionary corps sailing from Bremerhaven to defeat the Boxer Rebellion.
I'd like to point out that Owen Jones has been through approximately 10,000x as much shit as Bari Weiss, including being physically assaulted, and doesn't think it's "impossible to do his job"
And no one gives him credit for "surviving cancel culture"
I think that is a rather bizarre comment. Jones may deserve credit for bravery and courage in dealing with hostility but it's not something he experiences from his employer - unless the Guardian is quite different to what I thought it was.
The Weiss case seems more analogous to Peter Oborne when he left the Telegraph. Perhaps we need to stop treating newspapers as the fourth estate and 24 hour news might be making them redundant. Weekly/monthly magazines might be a better model for the future.
Weiss tried to get at least two other journalists at the Times fired. She then made the "contents" of a private meeting public. Multiple independent NYT employees stated that she lied about what happened at the meeting.
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
Where are these French people who are offended by the word Frog? I don't know any, and I have lived in France and spent a lot of time there. For that matter I don't know a single English person offended by the word Rosbif, which is exactly equivalent.
The indignation about totally harmless informal words is pure Guardianista offence-mining.
No offence taken. Frog is in exactly the same context as Rosbif. Until Mr Thompson's earlier intervention I had heard neither since 1974.
Yes, they are both old-fashioned. But words sometimes come back - I'm delighted that the splendid 'toff', which had all but died out, is now reinstated,
In the 1980s some French people called the English "les fuckings", because of our constant use of the F word. They've stopped doing it now, which is a shame, as it was quite funny
An oddity is the widespread use of The Hun, which is apparently down to Churchill's misconception that the Germans were somehow descended from Atilla.
It was a Great War term of opprobrium, was it not? I don't think it was solely down to WSC, though he may have perpetuated it ...
"Professor Stephen Holgate FMedSci, a respiratory specialist from University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, who chaired the report, said: “This is not a prediction, but it is a possibility. The modelling suggests that deaths could be higher with a new wave of COVID-19 this winter, but the risk of this happening could be reduced if we take action immediately.”
“With relatively low numbers of COVID-19 cases at the moment, this is a critical window of opportunity to help us prepare for the worst that winter can throw at us.”
An advisory group of 37 experts were rapidly assembled to create the report following a request by the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor. The report was guided by a patient and carer reference group that provided information and advice on the key issues for those who would be most affected by a bad winter."
It does seem odd for a government to commission a report of "nonsense".
I note the 120 000 second wave deaths has Confidence Intervals of 25 000-250 000, and is only hospital deaths, not community and nursing homes. It is based on an r value sticking at 1.7. The whole point is to forecast what happens without planning to mitigate.
So what are the chances of us not planning to mitigate? Thats why its nonsense, its produced a prediction on something that will never happen. Its like producing a report stating that if you don't look before you cross the road the chances of you dying are higher than if you do look.
I'm frequently involved in writing reports that present a realistic worst case. The point is to provide a framework in which to determine the potential value of mitigation efforts.
If this report came back with a worst case of 500 deaths, then probably no mitigations would be worth considering, certainly nothing with high cost. This report suggests that actually a lot of mitigations are worth considering, up to potentially quite high costs (exactly what costs are a political decision).
This also enables answering questions like do we need to set aside extra mortuary space, burial facilities, do we need to keep Nightingale hospitals online, do we need to train more medics/buy more PPE/more ventilators? All valuable things.
Really. It's like the BBC is intent on self harm. Like it *wants* to get defunded.
Don't the stats show they are already more diverse than the country?
Not when it comes to diversity of thought . . .
I've thought for a while that the BBC was heading into trouble - its model is unsustainable in the era of streaming. For the first time, I think its demise will come quite soon, maybe in the next decade.
All the Tories have to do is decriminalise non-licence-fee-paying. Then that's it. Everything collapses. It is a perfectly legitimate move, on moral grounds, and it instantly demolishes an institution which is hellbent on annoying anyone remotely conservative.
I don't want to pay for the BBC on the grounds its terrible quality and terrible value for money in a highly competitive sector with lots of alternatives.
The fact that its left wing is actually not high up my list of concerns with the BBC.
Really. It's like the BBC is intent on self harm. Like it *wants* to get defunded.
Don't the stats show they are already more diverse than the country?
Point of order. Surely it cannot be possible to be more diverse than the average? That merely makes them less diverse in a different way. Pedant mode off.
An oddity is the widespread use of The Hun, which is apparently down to Churchill's misconception that the Germans were somehow descended from Atilla.
I doubt if it's anything to do with Churchill. More likely it came into popular usage because of this 1914 poem (widely misinterpreted, like much Kipling):
Thanks Richard, that's interesting, but I think Churchill is implicated somewhere. Maybe he picked it up uncritically from Kipling. I'm sure he uses the term in his WW2 volumes, but I don't want to look it up in case I am wrong.
He certainly used it, but it was already very widely used in the First World War:
Really. It's like the BBC is intent on self harm. Like it *wants* to get defunded.
Don't the stats show they are already more diverse than the country?
Point of order. Surely it cannot be possible to be more diverse than the average? That merely makes them less diverse in a different way. Pedant mode off.
Not at all, you are confusing diverse and representative. Diverse just means different.
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
Where are these French people who are offended by the word Frog? I don't know any, and I have lived in France and spent a lot of time there. For that matter I don't know a single English person offended by the word Rosbif, which is exactly equivalent.
The indignation about totally harmless informal words is pure Guardianista offence-mining.
No offence taken. Frog is in exactly the same context as Rosbif. Until Mr Thompson's earlier intervention I had heard neither since 1974.
Yes, they are both old-fashioned. But words sometimes come back - I'm delighted that the splendid 'toff', which had all but died out, is now reinstated,
In the 1980s some French people called the English "les fuckings", because of our constant use of the F word. They've stopped doing it now, which is a shame, as it was quite funny
An oddity is the widespread use of The Hun, which is apparently down to Churchill's misconception that the Germans were somehow descended from Atilla.
It was a Great War term of opprobrium, was it not? I don't think it was solely down to WSC, though he may have perpetuated it ...
"Frogs are slightly better than wops or huns" - Uncle Matthew in Nancy Mitford, Pursuit of Love - published 1945, but Uncle M's views and vocab date from WW1.
This is worth a spin if you've not heard it before. I don't think you could get away with it today, even though the intention is plainly ironic.
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
Where are these French people who are offended by the word Frog? I don't know any, and I have lived in France and spent a lot of time there. For that matter I don't know a single English person offended by the word Rosbif, which is exactly equivalent.
The indignation about totally harmless informal words is pure Guardianista offence-mining.
No offence taken. Frog is in exactly the same context as Rosbif. Until Mr Thompson's earlier intervention I had heard neither since 1974.
Yes, they are both old-fashioned. But words sometimes come back - I'm delighted that the splendid 'toff', which had all but died out, is now reinstated,
In the 1980s some French people called the English "les fuckings", because of our constant use of the F word. They've stopped doing it now, which is a shame, as it was quite funny
An oddity is the widespread use of The Hun, which is apparently down to Churchill's misconception that the Germans were somehow descended from Atilla.
It was a Great War term of opprobrium, was it not? I don't think it was solely down to WSC, though he may have perpetuated it ...
"Frogs are slightly better than wops or huns" - Uncle Matthew in Nancy Mitford, Pursuit of Love - published 1945, but Uncle M's views and vocab date from WW1.
"The origin of the term was a reference to Attila the Hun in Wilhelm II's "Hun speech" (Hunnenrede) delivered on 27 July 1900, when he bade farewell to the German expeditionary corps sailing from Bremerhaven to defeat the Boxer Rebellion"
The German Army of the time used a policy, which translates as "frightfulness" - essentially be harsh to suppress a civilian population.
They had done this in 1870 when they shot anyone they suspected of being a "sniper". Reprisals against civilian communities harbouring "spies", "saboteurs" & "snipers" was part of the plan.
So when they turned up in China, their behaviour was considered a bit OTT, even by colonial standards.
When they marched through Belgium, the Germany Army came up with the idea that since they needed to march through Belgium, the Belgians resisting them was a crime... Quite a few "Shot by the Germans in 1914" in various Belgian graveyards.
Yes, they were doing what they would do again, in 1940.
An oddity is the widespread use of The Hun, which is apparently down to Churchill's misconception that the Germans were somehow descended from Atilla.
I doubt if it's anything to do with Churchill. More likely it came into popular usage because of this 1914 poem (widely misinterpreted, like much Kipling):
Thanks Richard, that's interesting, but I think Churchill is implicated somewhere. Maybe he picked it up uncritically from Kipling. I'm sure he uses the term in his WW2 volumes, but I don't want to look it up in case I am wrong.
He certainly used it, but it was already very widely used in the First World War:
Look, I am on the Trump toast train but it is unarguable that more people are excited to vote FOR Trump than they are FOR Biden. True vastly more people are firm ion wanting to vote AGAINST Trump than Biden but the question that I don't think is answered is what is a better motivating force in a Presidential Election rather than a midterm
In fairness, the full article linked to does actually address why its author considers negative enthusiasm to probably be more consequential than positive enthusiasm. The tweet slightly oversimplifies, but that's just the nature of the form.
Look, I am on the Trump toast train but it is unarguable that more people are excited to vote FOR Trump than they are FOR Biden. True vastly more people are firm ion wanting to vote AGAINST Trump than Biden but the question that I don't think is answered is what is a better motivating force in a Presidential Election rather than a midterm
The whole FiveThirtyEight article is worth reading, and I share your scepticism to some degree.
The other thing which is important to realise is that most US polls are of "registered voters". Which is fine, except for the fact that turnout at US Presidential elections is dismal - just 56% in 2016 (and has been below 50% as recently as 1996).
That being said... the leads Biden is now showing are sufficiently large that no degree of differential turnout will change the result. What saves Trump is the US economy recovering.
Look, I am on the Trump toast train but it is unarguable that more people are excited to vote FOR Trump than they are FOR Biden. True vastly more people are firm ion wanting to vote AGAINST Trump than Biden but the question that I don't think is answered is what is a better motivating force in a Presidential Election rather than a midterm
People did get excited to vote AGAINST Corbyn (correctly IMO). That is why we ended up with a clown for PM, rather than a terrorist sympathising Marxist. People preferred The Clown. Ridiculous was less frightening than dangerous.
Really. It's like the BBC is intent on self harm. Like it *wants* to get defunded.
Don't the stats show they are already more diverse than the country?
Not when it comes to diversity of thought . . .
I've thought for a while that the BBC was heading into trouble - its model is unsustainable in the era of streaming. For the first time, I think its demise will come quite soon, maybe in the next decade.
All the Tories have to do is decriminalise non-licence-fee-paying. Then that's it. Everything collapses. It is a perfectly legitimate move, on moral grounds, and it instantly demolishes an institution which is hellbent on annoying anyone remotely conservative.
I don't want to pay for the BBC on the grounds its terrible quality and terrible value for money in a highly competitive sector with lots of alternatives.
The fact that its left wing is actually not high up my list of concerns with the BBC.
The Wokeism begins to irritate me. The quality of TV is now pretty poor. The website is utterly dreary.
However, I wasn't really referring to us average punters and our opinions, I was talking about politicians. The BBC is starting to seriously annoy MPs (see Twitter) and all it takes is enough of them to get in a huff and they decide to end the licence fee crime thing, and bang.
A Wealth Tax is an exciting prospect. But will a Conservative government really do that? One for the 'believe it when I see it' basket.
Just like my argument on CGT on residential properties it does seem to be a very anti Conservative thing to do, so would be a bold move.
I also think a wealth tax would be difficult to implement.
There is a need to tap into wealth - of which there is oodles - if we are to maintain the sort of public realm we have become used to.
Your CGT on homes makes sense imo but it has next to no chance of happening because of the way we view home ownership here. There's a strong intellectual and moral case for it though.
I'm not really sure about that.
They used to think that mortgage tax relief was untouchable for political reasons. Then it went.
Main dwellings are treated as an investment - used for raising finance, saving for retirement, supporting children etc. As such there is not much reason to keep the unearned gains tax free.
Consider that one George Osborne has just trousered £3.1m of gains for which he has not done an hour's work. Is it really unacceptable that that should only be say £2.5m of unearned gains after tax rather than £3.1m?
I think the strategic clincher is that the £25-30bn of lost tax due to the allowance is overwhelmingly handed to the wealthier people in the wealthier areas of the country.
How will that play in the Red Wall when pointed out, and perhaps combined with a more generous CGT Allowance or reintroduction of indexation?
Personally I would abolish it at a stroke, but perhaps an initial cut followed by death on the vine is an alternative.
I agree the case (CGT on homes) is good. There would be more winners than losers and by and large the losers can afford to lose and the winners need the win. But I sense the public can't be sold on it. Why? Because of how property ownership is perceived. "You work hard, pay your tax, scrimp and save instead of spending so you can buy a nice house for you and your family, and then the government is going to come along and take a big slice when you sell it? NFW!" This sentiment. It's the same reason that IHT is so hated. Just replace "sell it" with "die". I find this irrational and borderline selfish but I accept I'm in a minority.
Look, I am on the Trump toast train but it is unarguable that more people are excited to vote FOR Trump than they are FOR Biden. True vastly more people are firm ion wanting to vote AGAINST Trump than Biden but the question that I don't think is answered is what is a better motivating force in a Presidential Election rather than a midterm
In fairness, the full article linked to does actually address why its author considers negative enthusiasm to probably be more consequential than positive enthusiasm. The tweet slightly oversimplifies, but that's just the nature of the form.
In politics, hate generally trump (pun intended) love.
Also note that in the primaries, Sanders & several others clearly outweighed Biden on the enthusiasm scale. But it was Uncle Joe who won.
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Yes, "Frog" was harmless in the 1970s in episodes of "Mind Your Language", but we have moved on.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
Where are these French people who are offended by the word Frog? I don't know any, and I have lived in France and spent a lot of time there. For that matter I don't know a single English person offended by the word Rosbif, which is exactly equivalent.
The indignation about totally harmless informal words is pure Guardianista offence-mining.
No offence taken. Frog is in exactly the same context as Rosbif. Until Mr Thompson's earlier intervention I had heard neither since 1974.
Yes, they are both old-fashioned. But words sometimes come back - I'm delighted that the splendid 'toff', which had all but died out, is now reinstated,
In the 1980s some French people called the English "les fuckings", because of our constant use of the F word. They've stopped doing it now, which is a shame, as it was quite funny
An oddity is the widespread use of The Hun, which is apparently down to Churchill's misconception that the Germans were somehow descended from Atilla.
It was a Great War term of opprobrium, was it not? I don't think it was solely down to WSC, though he may have perpetuated it ...
I think he preferred to call them the "Narrzees"
He wasn't uncritically anti-German. He seems to have laid much of the blame for German militarism on the Prussians.
Really. It's like the BBC is intent on self harm. Like it *wants* to get defunded.
Yes, I've always thought it essential that the BBC made space for an AIDS denialist.
By common consent Neil is the best political interviewer out there. He is the one who made Boris run away and hide. He is the guy who filleted Corbyn in spectacular style.
Dropping him, as they seem to be doing (they are claiming there might be a different show) is just inexplicably dumb. All else is fluff.
Comments
And no one gives him credit for "surviving cancel culture"
I think that is a rather bizarre comment. Jones may deserve credit for bravery and courage in dealing with hostility but it's not something he experiences from his employer - unless the Guardian is quite different to what I thought it was.
The Weiss case seems more analogous to Peter Oborne when he left the Telegraph. Perhaps we need to stop treating newspapers as the fourth estate and 24 hour news might be making them redundant. Weekly/monthly magazines might be a better model for the future.
Where are the re-runs of "Love Thy Neighbour" when one craves some xenophobic and racist comedy?
An enquiry is in Johnson's gift, and today he gave. Granted, Cummings writes the terms and conditions, but it was a concession in principle nonetheless.
I'm never been exactly sure if my own Boris-style height of about 5 9 and a half is considered "average" or "short". I have some friends of this stature who look "tall" and others who are considered diminutive. I notice in Italy many men are shorter than me.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-07-15/positive-news-is-coming-on-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-writes-robert-peston
The indignation about totally harmless informal words is pure Guardianista offence-mining.
Give the vertically challenged man some credit, he hired the best social media manager on the planet
By then Boris will be 66 and doing well-paid speeches in the newly Independent Republic of George Floydia, formerly known as NYC, until it collapsed into ruin, just like London.
Rugby fans use it quite a lot. I have a Welsh friend who takes great pleasure in "beating the Frogs, though not as much as beating the f*cking English." I tell him he's a Taff with an inferiority complex. Etc.
No one gets remotely offended.
He does have some great media managers though, as until I saw that lineup shot, I imagined he was quite tall.
(If they'd used the shot taken a couple of seconds before, he'd have been on tiptoe to reach over the counter...)
Hence why a shortish heavy bloke can look pretty damn good.
So it's possible. It's just possible.
PtP 1.75m, and perfectly formed.
On the other hand, they are axing Andrew Neil.
https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1283399115150368772?s=20
Really. It's like the BBC is intent on self harm. Like it *wants* to get defunded.
https://ourworldindata.org/human-height
Field day for offence-takers, I'd have thought.
Little Englander is a very good description, just as "Little Scotlander" is apt for their Scottish equivalents that vote for the SNP. Small minded nationalistic thinking is backward, chippy and lacking in confidence. It is a very "sad" mentality.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/57431/for-all-we-have-and-are
Look, I am on the Trump toast train but it is unarguable that more people are excited to vote FOR Trump than they are FOR Biden. True vastly more people are firm ion wanting to vote AGAINST Trump than Biden but the question that I don't think is answered is what is a better motivating force in a Presidential Election rather than a midterm
All the Tories have to do is decriminalise non-licence-fee-paying. Then that's it. Everything collapses. It is a perfectly legitimate move, on moral grounds, and it instantly demolishes an institution which is hellbent on annoying anyone remotely conservative.
If this report came back with a worst case of 500 deaths, then probably no mitigations would be worth considering, certainly nothing with high cost. This report suggests that actually a lot of mitigations are worth considering, up to potentially quite high costs (exactly what costs are a political decision).
This also enables answering questions like do we need to set aside extra mortuary space, burial facilities, do we need to keep Nightingale hospitals online, do we need to train more medics/buy more PPE/more ventilators? All valuable things.
The fact that its left wing is actually not high up my list of concerns with the BBC.
That merely makes them less diverse in a different way.
Pedant mode off.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1283410406774648834?s=20
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/11053788/Here-comes-the-Hun-how-First-World-War-cemented-a-popular-term-for-Germans.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh-wEXvdW8
The German Army of the time used a policy, which translates as "frightfulness" - essentially be harsh to suppress a civilian population.
They had done this in 1870 when they shot anyone they suspected of being a "sniper". Reprisals against civilian communities harbouring "spies", "saboteurs" & "snipers" was part of the plan.
So when they turned up in China, their behaviour was considered a bit OTT, even by colonial standards.
When they marched through Belgium, the Germany Army came up with the idea that since they needed to march through Belgium, the Belgians resisting them was a crime... Quite a few "Shot by the Germans in 1914" in various Belgian graveyards.
Yes, they were doing what they would do again, in 1940.
And obviously the word itself by Tribe of Huns, Sellar and Yeatman etc.
The other thing which is important to realise is that most US polls are of "registered voters". Which is fine, except for the fact that turnout at US Presidential elections is dismal - just 56% in 2016 (and has been below 50% as recently as 1996).
That being said... the leads Biden is now showing are sufficiently large that no degree of differential turnout will change the result. What saves Trump is the US economy recovering.
However, I wasn't really referring to us average punters and our opinions, I was talking about politicians. The BBC is starting to seriously annoy MPs (see Twitter) and all it takes is enough of them to get in a huff and they decide to end the licence fee crime thing, and bang.
I've met hime twice and tower over him – and I'm on the short side of 5-11.
Also note that in the primaries, Sanders & several others clearly outweighed Biden on the enthusiasm scale. But it was Uncle Joe who won.
Dropping him, as they seem to be doing (they are claiming there might be a different show) is just inexplicably dumb. All else is fluff.