A year ago yesterday, I did my most recent "inter-city" rail journey, Aberdeen to Inverness. Also the last time I "coloured in" a newly traversed section of track on my Baker GB Railway Atlas.
Covid severely fucked up my attempt to finish off the official GB "National Rail" network in 2020! Especially when I just had two trains left to do (both from Inverness, incidentally!).
Anyway, my railway Bouquet-list includes:
Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh Inverness to Thurso/Wick
and also:
The Sunday-only "Dale Rail" from Clitheroe to Hellifield The Manchester Metrolink branch to Trafford Centre (only open from Mother's Day last year - the day before lockdown!)
The Inverness to Kyle train journey is one I did last summer. It's gorgeous: a real treat
The only better journey I have done, in the UK, is one I did on that same trip. Mallaig to Fort William, by steam. It is sublime. One of the greatest train journeys in the world, for sure, even if it only lasts an hour or two.
What I didn't know - until then - is just how filthy steam trains are. I always imagined they puffed out, well, STEAM. They don't. It is smoke and steam, mixed with soot, which gently rains on everything behind. By the end of the journey, when we arrived in Fort William - windows open to the wonderful Highlands sunset - everyone and everything was covered with a fine layer of dirt.
My mother always mentions the dirt when recalling the steam trains of her youth
Dirt and hot cinders. I distinctly remember once being sat stationary on a train for about an hour somewhere in the vicinity of Doncaster. It transpired that a steam leisure outing had been up the line ahead of us, and the crap coming out of it had set fire to dry grass along the tracks. We were therefore obliged to wait for the flames to be doused before we could continue on our way. It was not amusing.
One of those things from the past viewed through rose tinted spectacles. There are many similar examples. The Ford Capri springs to mind.
Trains: Possibly the most mournful but beautiful sound remembered from my childhood was the sound of a train's whistle in the far distance over the prairie in the middle of the hot summer night, heard from an isolated small motel somewhere in Kansas.
When I was a boy in WVa, my hometown was on the Ohio River AND the (then) Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad (C&O RR) mainline. So got to hear many trainAND (when it was foggy) tug boat whistles. Doubly blessed!
The sound of Tube trains OVERGROUND is oddly soothing. Chicka-chacka, chicka-chacka. My older daughter's backgarden abuts an overground Tube line. You'd think it would be annoying, but it is possibly the opposite.
Very different to the sound of planes overhead, which is always annoying, even distressing, if they are close enough
There must be some psycho-acoustic explanation for this. Perhaps train-noise mimics the heartbeat in the womb?
I've heard it said that this is why you famously get a great night's kip on a sleeper train (which you often do). The gently rocking movement mimics the baby's cradle/your pregnant mum walking, the noise mimics your mum's throbbing and loving heart
I won't pretend to proffer an alternative explanation, but that sounds like convenient pablum dreamt up by some train marketing executive.
But it would also explain why trains are so uniquely beloved as a form of public transport. No one gets orgasms over buses, or trams, or cable cars, or the DC10. Trains seem to evoke something visceral. The uterus?
That was the attitude last March as I recall. It was only the "Shanghai Sniffle" as one ex-poster called it. 125,000 deaths later and attitudes, well, have they changed?
Perhaps not so much.
I can't see the future - I don't know what variants or mutations are going to emerge. We have to hold the lockdown, which from a public health point of view, has been incredibly successful, in reserve IF something occurs against which the current group of vaccines is ineffective.
Oddly enough, the immunity the vaccinations will provide now may serve us well down the road but it won't help those who come after us who may face something "new" in 30 years - it's happened before, you'd be a brave man to assume it won't happen again.
With vaccination, Covid and influenza can be "coped with" though there's no such thing as complete immunity and we need to ensure treatments mean the maximum number of those hospitalised emerge recover.
I've no problem with experts unlike some it would appear. Maybe I'm more risk averse than you or others but as I said the other night, it's my life and I'll be as risk averse as I want.
Oddly enough, because usually I'm in the minority on most issues, this time I think I'm in the majority.
In 30 years time it'll hopefully be possible to vaccinate everyone within a few weeks with a jab that was developed almost immediately after the new virus was identified. The same as 2020/2021 but much faster, with only a short lockdown needed.
Trains: Possibly the most mournful but beautiful sound remembered from my childhood was the sound of a train's whistle in the far distance over the prairie in the middle of the hot summer night, heard from an isolated small motel somewhere in Kansas.
When I was a boy in WVa, my hometown was on the Ohio River AND the (then) Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad (C&O RR) mainline. So got to hear many trainAND (when it was foggy) tug boat whistles. Doubly blessed!
The sound of Tube trains OVERGROUND is oddly soothing. Chicka-chacka, chicka-chacka. My older daughter's backgarden abuts an overground Tube line. You'd think it would be annoying, but it is possibly the opposite.
Very different to the sound of planes overhead, which is always annoying, even distressing, if they are close enough
There must be some psycho-acoustic explanation for this. Perhaps train-noise mimics the heartbeat in the womb?
I've heard it said that this is why you famously get a great night's kip on a sleeper train (which you often do). The gently rocking movement mimics the baby's cradle/your pregnant mum walking, the noise mimics your mum's throbbing and loving heart
Yes, the customary sounds of a train running over track ARE soothing. They are regular, of sufficient duration so their patterns are absorbed by the listener, and signs of both activity and normalcy.
Same goes for train whistles (of whatever national or local style), foghorns and the like.
Sirens are different, they are signs something is wrong nearby, but also that something is being done. Think they have troubled many millions of folks in many parts of the world at one time or another during the current pandemic, myself included.
As noted, plain noises are different, though must say that the sound of a small plane - especially float planes commonly seen flying over Seattle - can be quite nice IF NOT too low above your own location.
Highway noise tends to be the most irritating. Though occasionally have found (say when staying at a Motel 6 just off a busy interstate exit) that even the highway whine of a constant stream of big rigs can be oddly soothing once you get used to it. Sometimes.
BBC did a few ‘Slow TV’ programmes, one of which was hours of a train travelling through Australia, which I found quite relaxing.
When I was young my mum didn’t like travelling on planes, so we got the overnight train to Italy from Calais... and someone shot at it! That wasn’t so relaxing. It was a farmer protesting about something or the other
My personal view at the moment is that absolutely must not let the medical establishment pressure politicians into lockdown next winter for flu.
I'm prepared to keep a bit of an open mind on this, but it feels to me like we would get into a situation where we never really have a normal society again because we live in fear of flu which we have lived with for tens of thousands of years.
This was a one off pandemic. Once in a decades event. We cannot allow it to change our long held attitude to flu and other winter illnesses.
She can fucking do one. No more lockdowns
We can cope with flu. We coped before. Fuck off
It kills a fair number of people every year - they aren't around to disagree with you, but I expect they mostly would. Like Stodge, I'll be as risk-averse as I choose, and plenty of us have noted the fall in all kinds of infections due to social distancing, masks etc.
I think the answer is somewhere in between - most people will go back to something resembling their previous lives, but will be a bit less willing to pack into crowds. But anyway my understanding of point is that we need to have the NHS on alert in November as the usual winter crisis may be more acute than usual. That doesn't seem controversial.
I do think that masks are going to be a lot more mainstream now - along the lines of what you see in Asia and particularly amongst Asians in Western airports. I have no issue with that. I suspect I probably won't bother but I wouldn't at all criticise those who do.
Trains: Possibly the most mournful but beautiful sound remembered from my childhood was the sound of a train's whistle in the far distance over the prairie in the middle of the hot summer night, heard from an isolated small motel somewhere in Kansas.
When I was a boy in WVa, my hometown was on the Ohio River AND the (then) Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad (C&O RR) mainline. So got to hear many trainAND (when it was foggy) tug boat whistles. Doubly blessed!
The sound of Tube trains OVERGROUND is oddly soothing. Chicka-chacka, chicka-chacka. My older daughter's backgarden abuts an overground Tube line. You'd think it would be annoying, but it is possibly the opposite.
Very different to the sound of planes overhead, which is always annoying, even distressing, if they are close enough
There must be some psycho-acoustic explanation for this. Perhaps train-noise mimics the heartbeat in the womb?
I've heard it said that this is why you famously get a great night's kip on a sleeper train (which you often do). The gently rocking movement mimics the baby's cradle/your pregnant mum walking, the noise mimics your mum's throbbing and loving heart
I won't pretend to proffer an alternative explanation, but that sounds like convenient pablum dreamt up by some train marketing executive.
But it would also explain why trains are so uniquely beloved as a form of public transport. No one gets orgasms over buses, or trams, or cable cars, or the DC10. Trains seem to evoke something visceral. The uterus?
My personal view at the moment is that absolutely must not let the medical establishment pressure politicians into lockdown next winter for flu.
I'm prepared to keep a bit of an open mind on this, but it feels to me like we would get into a situation where we never really have a normal society again because we live in fear of flu which we have lived with for tens of thousands of years.
This was a one off pandemic. Once in a decades event. We cannot allow it to change our long held attitude to flu and other winter illnesses.
She can fucking do one. No more lockdowns
We can cope with flu. We coped before. Fuck off
It kills a fair number of people every year - they aren't around to disagree with you, but I expect they mostly would. Like Stodge, I'll be as risk-averse as I choose, and plenty of us have noted the fall in all kinds of infections due to social distancing, masks etc.
I think the answer is somewhere in between - most people will go back to something resembling their previous lives, but will be a bit less willing to pack into crowds. But anyway my understanding of point is that we need to have the NHS on alert in November as the usual winter crisis may be more acute than usual. That doesn't seem controversial.
No. It may be fine and dandy for affluent, asexual, board-game-playing geekaloid introverts like you, but Covid lockdowns damage most people, mentally.
I will keep handwashing, I will wear a mask in public if I have a sniffle, I will get jabbed for flu; other than that let us live our lives as we did. We cannot let life become a living death, through fear of death
Does NOT sound to me, that you and Nick are very far apart on this. Certainly re: your 2nd paragraph.
My guess is that mask wearing in particular will be MUCH more socially acceptable in western countries post-COVID.
Yes. What I expect is that there will be a big push for people to wear masks in the winter in shops and the like, 'do it for the NHS' sort of thing, without there being laws to that effect.
My personal view at the moment is that absolutely must not let the medical establishment pressure politicians into lockdown next winter for flu.
I'm prepared to keep a bit of an open mind on this, but it feels to me like we would get into a situation where we never really have a normal society again because we live in fear of flu which we have lived with for tens of thousands of years.
This was a one off pandemic. Once in a decades event. We cannot allow it to change our long held attitude to flu and other winter illnesses.
She can fucking do one. No more lockdowns
We can cope with flu. We coped before. Fuck off
It kills a fair number of people every year - they aren't around to disagree with you, but I expect they mostly would. Like Stodge, I'll be as risk-averse as I choose, and plenty of us have noted the fall in all kinds of infections due to social distancing, masks etc.
I think the answer is somewhere in between - most people will go back to something resembling their previous lives, but will be a bit less willing to pack into crowds. But anyway my understanding of point is that we need to have the NHS on alert in November as the usual winter crisis may be more acute than usual. That doesn't seem controversial.
If some people want to hide themselves away from the world, that's their decision.
Exactly, if people wish to continue isolating themselves from the outside world, that is fine.
Lockdowns, or urgings to work from home can't go on. This is not a sustainable way to run society, and hugely damaging for many people.
Yes, people die from flu. People die from other stuff too. Three members of my family have been hit by cancer in the last 3 years. Another one nearly died in ICU from an autoimmune disease. Early thirties. I don't expect sympathy, death comes to us all, but please don't use viruses that have been around since year dot as an excuse to prevent us from living our lives.
Interestingly, this story from the BBC mentions Valance as saying wfh could be one of the "baseline" measures for next winter. He says no such thing in the video: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56312621
That was the attitude last March as I recall. It was only the "Shanghai Sniffle" as one ex-poster called it. 125,000 deaths later and attitudes, well, have they changed?
Perhaps not so much.
I can't see the future - I don't know what variants or mutations are going to emerge. We have to hold the lockdown, which from a public health point of view, has been incredibly successful, in reserve IF something occurs against which the current group of vaccines is ineffective.
Oddly enough, the immunity the vaccinations will provide now may serve us well down the road but it won't help those who come after us who may face something "new" in 30 years - it's happened before, you'd be a brave man to assume it won't happen again.
With vaccination, Covid and influenza can be "coped with" though there's no such thing as complete immunity and we need to ensure treatments mean the maximum number of those hospitalised emerge recover.
I've no problem with experts unlike some it would appear. Maybe I'm more risk averse than you or others but as I said the other night, it's my life and I'll be as risk averse as I want.
Oddly enough, because usually I'm in the minority on most issues, this time I think I'm in the majority.
That wasn't the attitude of one particlar poster, who took his shovel all the way to to Penarth and dug his own bunker.
Covid a year ago was unknown, new scary, no pre-existing immunity. Lockdown, well, it worked to a degree, but at what cost. 125,000 deaths occurred anyway despite the biggest restrictions on freedom since WW2.
Flu, none of those things. As my flint knapping friend so eloquently said, she can do one. The prominent positioning on the beeb does feel like they're trying to soften us up for more of this in future, I fear.
UK Lockdown has also caused the worst recession in 300 years, and taken our debt over 100% of GDP. This is horrendous, and will cost us in terms of future growth.
We simply can't afford to do it again. It must be avoided at all costs. If that means we get a bad flu season more often - 10,000 excess deaths - so be it. 550,000 die every year.
We have to be a bit flintier, from now on. As it were
Trains: Possibly the most mournful but beautiful sound remembered from my childhood was the sound of a train's whistle in the far distance over the prairie in the middle of the hot summer night, heard from an isolated small motel somewhere in Kansas.
When I was a boy in WVa, my hometown was on the Ohio River AND the (then) Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad (C&O RR) mainline. So got to hear many trainAND (when it was foggy) tug boat whistles. Doubly blessed!
The sound of Tube trains OVERGROUND is oddly soothing. Chicka-chacka, chicka-chacka. My older daughter's backgarden abuts an overground Tube line. You'd think it would be annoying, but it is possibly the opposite.
Very different to the sound of planes overhead, which is always annoying, even distressing, if they are close enough
There must be some psycho-acoustic explanation for this. Perhaps train-noise mimics the heartbeat in the womb?
I've heard it said that this is why you famously get a great night's kip on a sleeper train (which you often do). The gently rocking movement mimics the baby's cradle/your pregnant mum walking, the noise mimics your mum's throbbing and loving heart
I won't pretend to proffer an alternative explanation, but that sounds like convenient pablum dreamt up by some train marketing executive.
But it would also explain why trains are so uniquely beloved as a form of public transport. No one gets orgasms over buses, or trams, or cable cars, or the DC10. Trains seem to evoke something visceral. The uterus?
Actually when I moved to Melbourne as a kid their tram network is something that is fun and unique. Trams have come to the UK in recent years a bit more, especially in Nottingham and a few other cities, but nothing like Melbourne's.
Go their and trams are treated in a similar special way to trains elsewhere.
A year ago yesterday, I did my most recent "inter-city" rail journey, Aberdeen to Inverness. Also the last time I "coloured in" a newly traversed section of track on my Baker GB Railway Atlas.
Covid severely fucked up my attempt to finish off the official GB "National Rail" network in 2020! Especially when I just had two trains left to do (both from Inverness, incidentally!).
Anyway, my railway Bouquet-list includes:
Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh Inverness to Thurso/Wick
and also:
The Sunday-only "Dale Rail" from Clitheroe to Hellifield The Manchester Metrolink branch to Trafford Centre (only open from Mother's Day last year - the day before lockdown!)
The Inverness to Kyle train journey is one I did last summer. It's gorgeous: a real treat
The only better journey I have done, in the UK, is one I did on that same trip. Mallaig to Fort William, by steam. It is sublime. One of the greatest train journeys in the world, for sure, even if it only lasts an hour or two.
What I didn't know - until then - is just how filthy steam trains are. I always imagined they puffed out, well, STEAM. They don't. It is smoke and steam, mixed with soot, which gently rains on everything behind. By the end of the journey, when we arrived in Fort William - windows open to the wonderful Highlands sunset - everyone and everything was covered with a fine layer of dirt.
My mother always mentions the dirt when recalling the steam trains of her youth
Dirt and hot cinders. I distinctly remember once being sat stationary on a train for about an hour somewhere in the vicinity of Doncaster. It transpired that a steam leisure outing had been up the line ahead of us, and the crap coming out of it had set fire to dry grass along the tracks. We were therefore obliged to wait for the flames to be doused before we could continue on our way. It was not amusing.
One of those things from the past viewed through rose tinted spectacles. There are many similar examples. The Ford Capri springs to mind.
Bobbies on the beat, Barbara Windsor’s tits, the post war consensus.
That was the attitude last March as I recall. It was only the "Shanghai Sniffle" as one ex-poster called it. 125,000 deaths later and attitudes, well, have they changed?
Perhaps not so much.
I can't see the future - I don't know what variants or mutations are going to emerge. We have to hold the lockdown, which from a public health point of view, has been incredibly successful, in reserve IF something occurs against which the current group of vaccines is ineffective.
Oddly enough, the immunity the vaccinations will provide now may serve us well down the road but it won't help those who come after us who may face something "new" in 30 years - it's happened before, you'd be a brave man to assume it won't happen again.
With vaccination, Covid and influenza can be "coped with" though there's no such thing as complete immunity and we need to ensure treatments mean the maximum number of those hospitalised emerge recover.
I've no problem with experts unlike some it would appear. Maybe I'm more risk averse than you or others but as I said the other night, it's my life and I'll be as risk averse as I want.
Oddly enough, because usually I'm in the minority on most issues, this time I think I'm in the majority.
That wasn't the attitude of one particlar poster, who took his shovel all the way to to Penarth and dug his own bunker.
Covid a year ago was unknown, new scary, no pre-existing immunity. Lockdown, well, it worked to a degree, but at what cost. 125,000 deaths occurred anyway despite the biggest restrictions on freedom since WW2.
Flu, none of those things. As my flint knapping friend so eloquently said, she can do one. The prominent positioning on the beeb does feel like they're trying to soften us up for more of this in future, I fear.
UK Lockdown has also caused the worst recession in 300 years, and taken our debt over 100% of GDP. This is horrendous, and will cost us in terms of future growth.
We simply can't afford to do it again. It must be avoided at all costs. If that means we get a bad flu season more often - 10,000 excess deaths - so be it. 550,000 die every year.
We have to be a bit flintier, from now on. As it were
Not everyone has the ready access to flint that you may have.
That was the attitude last March as I recall. It was only the "Shanghai Sniffle" as one ex-poster called it. 125,000 deaths later and attitudes, well, have they changed?
Perhaps not so much.
I can't see the future - I don't know what variants or mutations are going to emerge. We have to hold the lockdown, which from a public health point of view, has been incredibly successful, in reserve IF something occurs against which the current group of vaccines is ineffective.
Oddly enough, the immunity the vaccinations will provide now may serve us well down the road but it won't help those who come after us who may face something "new" in 30 years - it's happened before, you'd be a brave man to assume it won't happen again.
With vaccination, Covid and influenza can be "coped with" though there's no such thing as complete immunity and we need to ensure treatments mean the maximum number of those hospitalised emerge recover.
I've no problem with experts unlike some it would appear. Maybe I'm more risk averse than you or others but as I said the other night, it's my life and I'll be as risk averse as I want.
Oddly enough, because usually I'm in the minority on most issues, this time I think I'm in the majority.
That wasn't the attitude of one particlar poster, who took his shovel all the way to to Penarth and dug his own bunker.
Covid a year ago was unknown, new scary, no pre-existing immunity. Lockdown, well, it worked to a degree, but at what cost. 125,000 deaths occurred anyway despite the biggest restrictions on freedom since WW2.
Flu, none of those things. As my flint knapping friend so eloquently said, she can do one. The prominent positioning on the beeb does feel like they're trying to soften us up for more of this in future, I fear.
UK Lockdown has also caused the worst recession in 300 years, and taken our debt over 100% of GDP. This is horrendous, and will cost us in terms of future growth.
We simply can't afford to do it again. It must be avoided at all costs. If that means we get a bad flu season more often - 10,000 excess deaths - so be it. 550,000 die every year.
We have to be a bit flintier, from now on. As it were
My personal view at the moment is that absolutely must not let the medical establishment pressure politicians into lockdown next winter for flu.
I'm prepared to keep a bit of an open mind on this, but it feels to me like we would get into a situation where we never really have a normal society again because we live in fear of flu which we have lived with for tens of thousands of years.
This was a one off pandemic. Once in a decades event. We cannot allow it to change our long held attitude to flu and other winter illnesses.
She can fucking do one. No more lockdowns
We can cope with flu. We coped before. Fuck off
It kills a fair number of people every year - they aren't around to disagree with you, but I expect they mostly would. Like Stodge, I'll be as risk-averse as I choose, and plenty of us have noted the fall in all kinds of infections due to social distancing, masks etc.
I think the answer is somewhere in between - most people will go back to something resembling their previous lives, but will be a bit less willing to pack into crowds. But anyway my understanding of point is that we need to have the NHS on alert in November as the usual winter crisis may be more acute than usual. That doesn't seem controversial.
I do think that masks are going to be a lot more mainstream now - along the lines of what you see in Asia and particularly amongst Asians in Western airports. I have no issue with that. I suspect I probably won't bother but I wouldn't at all criticise those who do.
But if you get a sniffle - something that might be a precursor to a cold or flu - you should wear a mask to protect OTHERS from your germs.
I do not want another lockdown EVER. But I am happy to adopt the Singaporean attitude to masks, if that is the price of freedom: wear one if you feel - or you are - sick with a respiratory bug. It is an altruistic gesture to your fellow humans.
My personal view at the moment is that absolutely must not let the medical establishment pressure politicians into lockdown next winter for flu.
I'm prepared to keep a bit of an open mind on this, but it feels to me like we would get into a situation where we never really have a normal society again because we live in fear of flu which we have lived with for tens of thousands of years.
This was a one off pandemic. Once in a decades event. We cannot allow it to change our long held attitude to flu and other winter illnesses.
She can fucking do one. No more lockdowns
We can cope with flu. We coped before. Fuck off
It kills a fair number of people every year - they aren't around to disagree with you, but I expect they mostly would. Like Stodge, I'll be as risk-averse as I choose, and plenty of us have noted the fall in all kinds of infections due to social distancing, masks etc.
I think the answer is somewhere in between - most people will go back to something resembling their previous lives, but will be a bit less willing to pack into crowds. But anyway my understanding of point is that we need to have the NHS on alert in November as the usual winter crisis may be more acute than usual. That doesn't seem controversial.
I do think that masks are going to be a lot more mainstream now - along the lines of what you see in Asia and particularly amongst Asians in Western airports. I have no issue with that. I suspect I probably won't bother but I wouldn't at all criticise those who do.
I don't mind what others do, but I don't want to be harangued if I get on a train without a facemask next year because I might have a cold. I strongly suspect that will happen occasionally.
A year ago yesterday, I did my most recent "inter-city" rail journey, Aberdeen to Inverness. Also the last time I "coloured in" a newly traversed section of track on my Baker GB Railway Atlas.
Covid severely fucked up my attempt to finish off the official GB "National Rail" network in 2020! Especially when I just had two trains left to do (both from Inverness, incidentally!).
Anyway, my railway Bouquet-list includes:
Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh Inverness to Thurso/Wick
and also:
The Sunday-only "Dale Rail" from Clitheroe to Hellifield The Manchester Metrolink branch to Trafford Centre (only open from Mother's Day last year - the day before lockdown!)
The Inverness to Kyle train journey is one I did last summer. It's gorgeous: a real treat
The only better journey I have done, in the UK, is one I did on that same trip. Mallaig to Fort William, by steam. It is sublime. One of the greatest train journeys in the world, for sure, even if it only lasts an hour or two.
What I didn't know - until then - is just how filthy steam trains are. I always imagined they puffed out, well, STEAM. They don't. It is smoke and steam, mixed with soot, which gently rains on everything behind. By the end of the journey, when we arrived in Fort William - windows open to the wonderful Highlands sunset - everyone and everything was covered with a fine layer of dirt.
My mother always mentions the dirt when recalling the steam trains of her youth
Dirt and hot cinders. I distinctly remember once being sat stationary on a train for about an hour somewhere in the vicinity of Doncaster. It transpired that a steam leisure outing had been up the line ahead of us, and the crap coming out of it had set fire to dry grass along the tracks. We were therefore obliged to wait for the flames to be doused before we could continue on our way. It was not amusing.
One of those things from the past viewed through rose tinted spectacles. There are many similar examples. The Ford Capri springs to mind.
Bobbies on the beat, Barbara Windsor’s tits, the post war consensus.
Trains: Possibly the most mournful but beautiful sound remembered from my childhood was the sound of a train's whistle in the far distance over the prairie in the middle of the hot summer night, heard from an isolated small motel somewhere in Kansas.
When I was a boy in WVa, my hometown was on the Ohio River AND the (then) Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad (C&O RR) mainline. So got to hear many trainAND (when it was foggy) tug boat whistles. Doubly blessed!
The sound of Tube trains OVERGROUND is oddly soothing. Chicka-chacka, chicka-chacka. My older daughter's backgarden abuts an overground Tube line. You'd think it would be annoying, but it is possibly the opposite.
Very different to the sound of planes overhead, which is always annoying, even distressing, if they are close enough
There must be some psycho-acoustic explanation for this. Perhaps train-noise mimics the heartbeat in the womb?
I've heard it said that this is why you famously get a great night's kip on a sleeper train (which you often do). The gently rocking movement mimics the baby's cradle/your pregnant mum walking, the noise mimics your mum's throbbing and loving heart
I won't pretend to proffer an alternative explanation, but that sounds like convenient pablum dreamt up by some train marketing executive.
But it would also explain why trains are so uniquely beloved as a form of public transport. No one gets orgasms over buses, or trams, or cable cars, or the DC10. Trains seem to evoke something visceral. The uterus?
Actually when I moved to Melbourne as a kid their tram network is something that is fun and unique. Trams have come to the UK in recent years a bit more, especially in Nottingham and a few other cities, but nothing like Melbourne's.
Go their and trams are treated in a similar special way to trains elsewhere.
Meh. I have a personal loathing for trams. They drive me mad. A train in the middle of the street??? Absurdly dangerous.
I have nearly been squished by a tram a couple of times. Amsterdam. And, yes, Melbourne
That was the attitude last March as I recall. It was only the "Shanghai Sniffle" as one ex-poster called it. 125,000 deaths later and attitudes, well, have they changed?
Perhaps not so much.
I can't see the future - I don't know what variants or mutations are going to emerge. We have to hold the lockdown, which from a public health point of view, has been incredibly successful, in reserve IF something occurs against which the current group of vaccines is ineffective.
Oddly enough, the immunity the vaccinations will provide now may serve us well down the road but it won't help those who come after us who may face something "new" in 30 years - it's happened before, you'd be a brave man to assume it won't happen again.
With vaccination, Covid and influenza can be "coped with" though there's no such thing as complete immunity and we need to ensure treatments mean the maximum number of those hospitalised emerge recover.
I've no problem with experts unlike some it would appear. Maybe I'm more risk averse than you or others but as I said the other night, it's my life and I'll be as risk averse as I want.
Oddly enough, because usually I'm in the minority on most issues, this time I think I'm in the majority.
That wasn't the attitude of one particlar poster, who took his shovel all the way to to Penarth and dug his own bunker.
Covid a year ago was unknown, new scary, no pre-existing immunity. Lockdown, well, it worked to a degree, but at what cost. 125,000 deaths occurred anyway despite the biggest restrictions on freedom since WW2.
Flu, none of those things. As my flint knapping friend so eloquently said, she can do one. The prominent positioning on the beeb does feel like they're trying to soften us up for more of this in future, I fear.
UK Lockdown has also caused the worst recession in 300 years, and taken our debt over 100% of GDP. This is horrendous, and will cost us in terms of future growth.
We simply can't afford to do it again. It must be avoided at all costs. If that means we get a bad flu season more often - 10,000 excess deaths - so be it. 550,000 die every year.
We have to be a bit flintier, from now on. As it were
Lockdown was never to prevent 10k excess deaths.
If it was, we wouldn't have done it.
You miss my point. That's what I believe Covid will be, in the FUTURE. It will ramp up again, every so often, akin to a bad flu variant. We will have the vaccinatory nous to deflect it, but 10,000 will still die. Life goes on, as it should.
120,000 have died this time. It is ten times worse. As was always said. Ten times more lethal than flu, first time around
Farage should run for the London Mayoralty. I wonder if he might?
Another defeat to add to the rather long list then.
A long list of defeats. And, yet, one absolute, singular, world-changing victory. The envy of most politicians on earth
He was so used to the taste of defeat, that he even conceded his great victory.
He didn't want to win. Just like Boris. He wanted a narrow defeat and then the glory of grievance and near-triumph, which would carry them to greater fame and wealth
It kills a fair number of people every year - they aren't around to disagree with you, but I expect they mostly would. Like Stodge, I'll be as risk-averse as I choose, and plenty of us have noted the fall in all kinds of infections due to social distancing, masks etc.
I think the answer is somewhere in between - most people will go back to something resembling their previous lives, but will be a bit less willing to pack into crowds. But anyway my understanding of point is that we need to have the NHS on alert in November as the usual winter crisis may be more acute than usual. That doesn't seem controversial.
No. It may be fine and dandy for affluent, asexual, board-game-playing geekaloid introverts like you, but Covid lockdowns damage most people, mentally.
I will keep handwashing, I will wear a mask in public if I have a sniffle, I will get jabbed for flu; other than that let us live our lives as we did. We cannot let life become a living death, through fear of death
Does NOT sound to me, that you and Nick are very far apart on this. Certainly re: your 2nd paragraph.
My guess is that mask wearing in particular will be MUCH more socially acceptable in western countries post-COVID.
Yes, as SSI says, we're not saying anything very different (you just like picking fights, Leon). Unless you're arguing that people should be COMPELLED to gather in crowds, we pretty much agree. Many people - including you, right? - will take somewhat more precautions than usual, that's all.
The main crunch will I think come over wfh. Say a business can operate with every wfh, but it's somewhat inconvenient. Should it be compulsory, optional or banned? The trend towards "mixed" looks unstoppable - nearly everyone says they'd quite like to work at ho9me some days but not all the time. But if it's say 2 days a week in the office, then there will be consequences - lots more hot-desking in smaller offices for a start.
It looks astonishingly pervasive in the USA from the figures shown, but I've never heard of it in Britain, apart from a general rule, used mainly in employment disputes, that emails sent on office systems can be read by management. Using the camera to spy on you? Counting the seconds between your keystrokes? How common is this?
It kills a fair number of people every year - they aren't around to disagree with you, but I expect they mostly would. Like Stodge, I'll be as risk-averse as I choose, and plenty of us have noted the fall in all kinds of infections due to social distancing, masks etc.
I think the answer is somewhere in between - most people will go back to something resembling their previous lives, but will be a bit less willing to pack into crowds. But anyway my understanding of point is that we need to have the NHS on alert in November as the usual winter crisis may be more acute than usual. That doesn't seem controversial.
No. It may be fine and dandy for affluent, asexual, board-game-playing geekaloid introverts like you, but Covid lockdowns damage most people, mentally.
I will keep handwashing, I will wear a mask in public if I have a sniffle, I will get jabbed for flu; other than that let us live our lives as we did. We cannot let life become a living death, through fear of death
Does NOT sound to me, that you and Nick are very far apart on this. Certainly re: your 2nd paragraph.
My guess is that mask wearing in particular will be MUCH more socially acceptable in western countries post-COVID.
Yes, as SSI says, we're not saying anything very different (you just like picking fights, Leon). Unless you're arguing that people should be COMPELLED to gather in crowds, we pretty much agree. Many people - including you, right? - will take somewhat more precautions than usual, that's all.
The main crunch will I think come over wfh. Say a business can operate with every wfh, but it's somewhat inconvenient. Should it be compulsory, optional or banned? The trend towards "mixed" looks unstoppable - nearly everyone says they'd quite like to work at ho9me some days but not all the time. But if it's say 2 days a week in the office, then there will be consequences - lots more hot-desking in smaller offices for a start.
It looks astonishingly pervasive in the USA from the figures shown, but I've never heard of it in Britain, apart from a general rule, used mainly in employment disputes, that emails sent on office systems can be read by management. Using the camera to spy on you? Counting the seconds between your keystrokes? How common is this?
Eh, Nick, I wasn't picking a fight. Just teasing. Tho there is a more serious point about affluent, quasi-retired older people - like you - rather underplaying the damage lockdown does to younger, more extrovert people, people without huge gardens
Yes, we probably agree on the rest. Let those who want to isolate do so, the world otherwise must go on
It kills a fair number of people every year - they aren't around to disagree with you, but I expect they mostly would. Like Stodge, I'll be as risk-averse as I choose, and plenty of us have noted the fall in all kinds of infections due to social distancing, masks etc.
I think the answer is somewhere in between - most people will go back to something resembling their previous lives, but will be a bit less willing to pack into crowds. But anyway my understanding of point is that we need to have the NHS on alert in November as the usual winter crisis may be more acute than usual. That doesn't seem controversial.
No. It may be fine and dandy for affluent, asexual, board-game-playing geekaloid introverts like you, but Covid lockdowns damage most people, mentally.
I will keep handwashing, I will wear a mask in public if I have a sniffle, I will get jabbed for flu; other than that let us live our lives as we did. We cannot let life become a living death, through fear of death
Does NOT sound to me, that you and Nick are very far apart on this. Certainly re: your 2nd paragraph.
My guess is that mask wearing in particular will be MUCH more socially acceptable in western countries post-COVID.
Yes, as SSI says, we're not saying anything very different (you just like picking fights, Leon). Unless you're arguing that people should be COMPELLED to gather in crowds, we pretty much agree. Many people - including you, right? - will take somewhat more precautions than usual, that's all.
The main crunch will I think come over wfh. Say a business can operate with every wfh, but it's somewhat inconvenient. Should it be compulsory, optional or banned? The trend towards "mixed" looks unstoppable - nearly everyone says they'd quite like to work at ho9me some days but not all the time. But if it's say 2 days a week in the office, then there will be consequences - lots more hot-desking in smaller offices for a start.
It looks astonishingly pervasive in the USA from the figures shown, but I've never heard of it in Britain, apart from a general rule, used mainly in employment disputes, that emails sent on office systems can be read by management. Using the camera to spy on you? Counting the seconds between your keystrokes? How common is this?
Regarding the "mixed" working from home thing - that's the way things were going anyway pre covid. Certainly, many workplaces, especially in London had or were transitioning to hotdesking and encouraging employees to work from home a few days a week - driven by the economics. And the tube always seemed quieter on Fridays. I guess this will accelerate the trend by a decade or so though.
Farage should run for the London Mayoralty. I wonder if he might?
Another defeat to add to the rather long list then.
Almost certainly. But it might shake up the debate, like his attempts to win a seat in Westminster did. I doubt he thought he stood any chance of being elected in the majority of them either
Trains: Possibly the most mournful but beautiful sound remembered from my childhood was the sound of a train's whistle in the far distance over the prairie in the middle of the hot summer night, heard from an isolated small motel somewhere in Kansas.
When I was a boy in WVa, my hometown was on the Ohio River AND the (then) Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad (C&O RR) mainline. So got to hear many trainAND (when it was foggy) tug boat whistles. Doubly blessed!
The sound of Tube trains OVERGROUND is oddly soothing. Chicka-chacka, chicka-chacka. My older daughter's backgarden abuts an overground Tube line. You'd think it would be annoying, but it is possibly the opposite.
Very different to the sound of planes overhead, which is always annoying, even distressing, if they are close enough
There must be some psycho-acoustic explanation for this. Perhaps train-noise mimics the heartbeat in the womb?
I've heard it said that this is why you famously get a great night's kip on a sleeper train (which you often do). The gently rocking movement mimics the baby's cradle/your pregnant mum walking, the noise mimics your mum's throbbing and loving heart
I won't pretend to proffer an alternative explanation, but that sounds like convenient pablum dreamt up by some train marketing executive.
But it would also explain why trains are so uniquely beloved as a form of public transport. No one gets orgasms over buses, or trams, or cable cars, or the DC10. Trains seem to evoke something visceral. The uterus?
That reminds me of the song Cloudbusting by Kate Bush where the beat seamlessly segues into the sound of a steam train pulling into the station. It's about the psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich who started out writing about the purpose of the orgasm and ended up being persecuted by the FBI for experimenting with machines to manipulate clouds.
Trains: Possibly the most mournful but beautiful sound remembered from my childhood was the sound of a train's whistle in the far distance over the prairie in the middle of the hot summer night, heard from an isolated small motel somewhere in Kansas.
When I was a boy in WVa, my hometown was on the Ohio River AND the (then) Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad (C&O RR) mainline. So got to hear many trainAND (when it was foggy) tug boat whistles. Doubly blessed!
The sound of Tube trains OVERGROUND is oddly soothing. Chicka-chacka, chicka-chacka. My older daughter's backgarden abuts an overground Tube line. You'd think it would be annoying, but it is possibly the opposite.
Very different to the sound of planes overhead, which is always annoying, even distressing, if they are close enough
There must be some psycho-acoustic explanation for this. Perhaps train-noise mimics the heartbeat in the womb?
I've heard it said that this is why you famously get a great night's kip on a sleeper train (which you often do). The gently rocking movement mimics the baby's cradle/your pregnant mum walking, the noise mimics your mum's throbbing and loving heart
I won't pretend to proffer an alternative explanation, but that sounds like convenient pablum dreamt up by some train marketing executive.
But it would also explain why trains are so uniquely beloved as a form of public transport. No one gets orgasms over buses, or trams, or cable cars, or the DC10. Trains seem to evoke something visceral. The uterus?
That reminds me of the song Cloudbusting by Kate Bush where the beat seamlessly segues into the sound of a steam train pulling into the station. It's about the psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich who started out writing about the purpose of the orgasm and ended up being persecuted by the FBI for experimenting with machines to manipulate clouds.
Eh, Nick, I wasn't picking a fight. Just teasing. Tho there is a more serious point about affluent, quasi-retired older people - like you - rather underplaying the damage lockdown does to younger, more extrovert people, people without huge gardens
Yes, we probably agree on the rest. Let those who want to isolate do so, the world otherwise must go on
Yes, it's a long time since we had a serious squabble. That Lisbon Agreement, eh? Another world.
FWIW, I work longer hours than I've ever done except when I was an MP (which is basically an "all waking hours" job if you have a marginal seat - I went to the theatre once in 13 years) - normal day job plus 2-3 hours every evening translating or council stuff. Huge garden? It'd take you 10 seconds to cross my garden. But it's all choice - I could retire and/or have a bigger garden, but I'd rather not (there are better claims on my income).
We probably all know less about each other than we think, because we choose which sides to chat about online. I think the pandemic has been a sobering experience for most of us, so we'll be more a bit more careful. But broadly I agree with you - life will go on, and should do.
It kills a fair number of people every year - they aren't around to disagree with you, but I expect they mostly would. Like Stodge, I'll be as risk-averse as I choose, and plenty of us have noted the fall in all kinds of infections due to social distancing, masks etc.
I think the answer is somewhere in between - most people will go back to something resembling their previous lives, but will be a bit less willing to pack into crowds. But anyway my understanding of point is that we need to have the NHS on alert in November as the usual winter crisis may be more acute than usual. That doesn't seem controversial.
No. It may be fine and dandy for affluent, asexual, board-game-playing geekaloid introverts like you, but Covid lockdowns damage most people, mentally.
I will keep handwashing, I will wear a mask in public if I have a sniffle, I will get jabbed for flu; other than that let us live our lives as we did. We cannot let life become a living death, through fear of death
Does NOT sound to me, that you and Nick are very far apart on this. Certainly re: your 2nd paragraph.
My guess is that mask wearing in particular will be MUCH more socially acceptable in western countries post-COVID.
Yes, as SSI says, we're not saying anything very different (you just like picking fights, Leon). Unless you're arguing that people should be COMPELLED to gather in crowds, we pretty much agree. Many people - including you, right? - will take somewhat more precautions than usual, that's all.
The main crunch will I think come over wfh. Say a business can operate with every wfh, but it's somewhat inconvenient. Should it be compulsory, optional or banned? The trend towards "mixed" looks unstoppable - nearly everyone says they'd quite like to work at ho9me some days but not all the time. But if it's say 2 days a week in the office, then there will be consequences - lots more hot-desking in smaller offices for a start.
It looks astonishingly pervasive in the USA from the figures shown, but I've never heard of it in Britain, apart from a general rule, used mainly in employment disputes, that emails sent on office systems can be read by management. Using the camera to spy on you? Counting the seconds between your keystrokes? How common is this?
Regarding the "mixed" working from home thing - that's the way things were going anyway pre covid. Certainly, many workplaces, especially in London had or were transitioning to hotdesking and encouraging employees to work from home a few days a week - driven by the economics. And the tube always seemed quieter on Fridays. I guess this will accelerate the trend by a decade or so though.
Yes. Mixed/hybrid working is not new and I have no idea why it was ever cast as such. It was, as you say, pretty common in London prior to this shitshow. What won’t last outside isolated examples is 100% wfh. Very few people think Zoom/Teams is an adequate replacement for creative meetings. Fewer people will bother with rush hour, the five days in the office model will become even rarer, but people still need to be near people. So things will change, but not as radically as as some seem to think.
We won’t be locking down in the winter for flu, by the way. I’m not sure where this came from. We might, inshallah, be more hygienic, and avoid coming into the office when we have a cold or a cough.
Back on topic, I've been having a look at the Heavy Woollen Independents, who got 12% as TSE shows. The current leader is ex-UKIP and the party Facebook site is a mixture of rants about crime and local good works. But it also looks very cobwebbed - nothing since last August. Combined with the 3.2% Brexit Party vote, there's a chunky right-wing vote that may not contest a by-election very seriously. I'd be concerned about Labour's chances if it happens any time soon.
Trains: Possibly the most mournful but beautiful sound remembered from my childhood was the sound of a train's whistle in the far distance over the prairie in the middle of the hot summer night, heard from an isolated small motel somewhere in Kansas.
When I was a boy in WVa, my hometown was on the Ohio River AND the (then) Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad (C&O RR) mainline. So got to hear many trainAND (when it was foggy) tug boat whistles. Doubly blessed!
The sound of Tube trains OVERGROUND is oddly soothing. Chicka-chacka, chicka-chacka. My older daughter's backgarden abuts an overground Tube line. You'd think it would be annoying, but it is possibly the opposite.
Very different to the sound of planes overhead, which is always annoying, even distressing, if they are close enough
There must be some psycho-acoustic explanation for this. Perhaps train-noise mimics the heartbeat in the womb?
I've heard it said that this is why you famously get a great night's kip on a sleeper train (which you often do). The gently rocking movement mimics the baby's cradle/your pregnant mum walking, the noise mimics your mum's throbbing and loving heart
I won't pretend to proffer an alternative explanation, but that sounds like convenient pablum dreamt up by some train marketing executive.
But it would also explain why trains are so uniquely beloved as a form of public transport. No one gets orgasms over buses, or trams, or cable cars, or the DC10. Trains seem to evoke something visceral. The uterus?
Trams ARE trains, they just run along streets (though most of the UK tram networks have sections where they run "in the open" just like trains do).
As I point out to him, if you Google Miliband’s name, some of the first results are news stories – “million-dollar Miliband” – about his pay packet as charity CEO, which rose to a staggering $911,796 (around £741,883) in 2019 (an increase of nearly £200,000 in the previous two years, and two-and-a-half times the whopping amount enjoyed by his predecessor in the role). It seems to me and I’d guess to most people, I suggest, an extraordinary amount of money to be paid to work on behalf of the dollar-a-day poor. How does he justify it?
He likes to talk in lists, and he gives me a little list of reasons. “I say to people,” he says, “first, it’s right that it’s public. Second, that there’s an independent process that makes these allocations. Third, that I am paid four-fifths of the average of the peer organisations in New York. And finally, I said to people, look, the financial structure of the organisation is that we’re sitting on $125m endowment that yields seven or $8m a year or has done over the past 10 years. And we make sure that our executive salaries are more than covered by the money that comes from the endowment. So anyone who is donating to us can be confident about where their money is going.”
As I point out to him, if you Google Miliband’s name, some of the first results are news stories – “million-dollar Miliband” – about his pay packet as charity CEO, which rose to a staggering $911,796 (around £741,883) in 2019 (an increase of nearly £200,000 in the previous two years, and two-and-a-half times the whopping amount enjoyed by his predecessor in the role). It seems to me and I’d guess to most people, I suggest, an extraordinary amount of money to be paid to work on behalf of the dollar-a-day poor. How does he justify it?
He likes to talk in lists, and he gives me a little list of reasons. “I say to people,” he says, “first, it’s right that it’s public. Second, that there’s an independent process that makes these allocations. Third, that I am paid four-fifths of the average of the peer organisations in New York. And finally, I said to people, look, the financial structure of the organisation is that we’re sitting on $125m endowment that yields seven or $8m a year or has done over the past 10 years. And we make sure that our executive salaries are more than covered by the money that comes from the endowment. So anyone who is donating to us can be confident about where their money is going.”
I don't get how these people sleep. Seriously. Fair enough if you're a footballer or a singer or actor or even a model, you have a unique talent, or attribute, which enchants millions of people and makes their lives a tiny bit brighter, so you take home squillions. Life is full of luck and you got lucky and you make the world slightly better.
David Miliband is a fairly smart, rather political geek, that is all. On what planet does that justify a million dollar salary?? ESPECIALLY if your job is "representing the poor". What does he do with the annual $800,000 he does not deserve?
As I point out to him, if you Google Miliband’s name, some of the first results are news stories – “million-dollar Miliband” – about his pay packet as charity CEO, which rose to a staggering $911,796 (around £741,883) in 2019 (an increase of nearly £200,000 in the previous two years, and two-and-a-half times the whopping amount enjoyed by his predecessor in the role). It seems to me and I’d guess to most people, I suggest, an extraordinary amount of money to be paid to work on behalf of the dollar-a-day poor. How does he justify it?
He likes to talk in lists, and he gives me a little list of reasons. “I say to people,” he says, “first, it’s right that it’s public. Second, that there’s an independent process that makes these allocations. Third, that I am paid four-fifths of the average of the peer organisations in New York. And finally, I said to people, look, the financial structure of the organisation is that we’re sitting on $125m endowment that yields seven or $8m a year or has done over the past 10 years. And we make sure that our executive salaries are more than covered by the money that comes from the endowment. So anyone who is donating to us can be confident about where their money is going.”
My personal view at the moment is that absolutely must not let the medical establishment pressure politicians into lockdown next winter for flu.
I'm prepared to keep a bit of an open mind on this, but it feels to me like we would get into a situation where we never really have a normal society again because we live in fear of flu which we have lived with for tens of thousands of years.
This was a one off pandemic. Once in a decades event. We cannot allow it to change our long held attitude to flu and other winter illnesses.
She can fucking do one. No more lockdowns
We can cope with flu. We coped before. Fuck off
It kills a fair number of people every year - they aren't around to disagree with you, but I expect they mostly would. Like Stodge, I'll be as risk-averse as I choose, and plenty of us have noted the fall in all kinds of infections due to social distancing, masks etc.
I think the answer is somewhere in between - most people will go back to something resembling their previous lives, but will be a bit less willing to pack into crowds. But anyway my understanding of point is that we need to have the NHS on alert in November as the usual winter crisis may be more acute than usual. That doesn't seem controversial.
I do think that masks are going to be a lot more mainstream now - along the lines of what you see in Asia and particularly amongst Asians in Western airports. I have no issue with that. I suspect I probably won't bother but I wouldn't at all criticise those who do.
But if you get a sniffle - something that might be a precursor to a cold or flu - you should wear a mask to protect OTHERS from your germs.
I do not want another lockdown EVER. But I am happy to adopt the Singaporean attitude to masks, if that is the price of freedom: wear one if you feel - or you are - sick with a respiratory bug. It is an altruistic gesture to your fellow humans.
Yep I should have been clearer. I didn't mean I would have any objection at all to wearing a mask or would actively choose not to do so. Just that I suspect I will, like millions of others, fall out of the habit and not think about it much. I have not been out much throughout the whole pandemic so even though I have done it at all times I was out, mask wearing has actually been rare for me and has not built into a habit. It will take a conscious decision from me to remember to do so.
As I point out to him, if you Google Miliband’s name, some of the first results are news stories – “million-dollar Miliband” – about his pay packet as charity CEO, which rose to a staggering $911,796 (around £741,883) in 2019 (an increase of nearly £200,000 in the previous two years, and two-and-a-half times the whopping amount enjoyed by his predecessor in the role). It seems to me and I’d guess to most people, I suggest, an extraordinary amount of money to be paid to work on behalf of the dollar-a-day poor. How does he justify it?
He likes to talk in lists, and he gives me a little list of reasons. “I say to people,” he says, “first, it’s right that it’s public. Second, that there’s an independent process that makes these allocations. Third, that I am paid four-fifths of the average of the peer organisations in New York. And finally, I said to people, look, the financial structure of the organisation is that we’re sitting on $125m endowment that yields seven or $8m a year or has done over the past 10 years. And we make sure that our executive salaries are more than covered by the money that comes from the endowment. So anyone who is donating to us can be confident about where their money is going.”
I don't get how these people sleep. Seriously. Fair enough if you're a footballer or a singer or actor or even a model, you have a unique talent, or attribute, which enchants millions of people and makes their lives a tiny bit brighter, so you take home squillions. Life is full of luck and you got lucky and you make the world slightly better.
David Miliband is a fairly smart, rather political geek, that is all. On what planet does that justify a million dollar salary?? ESPECIALLY if your job is "representing the poor". What does he do with the annual $800,000 he does not deserve?
Go AWAY. Get RID.
UGH
He is safe in the knowledge that his work is helping some of the more disadvantaged people in the world. Oh, and he and his family won't have to work another day in their lives if they don't have to. For what it's worth, I'd sleep like a fucking baby.
I see where you're coming from though, incredible sums of money.
Trains: Possibly the most mournful but beautiful sound remembered from my childhood was the sound of a train's whistle in the far distance over the prairie in the middle of the hot summer night, heard from an isolated small motel somewhere in Kansas.
When I was a boy in WVa, my hometown was on the Ohio River AND the (then) Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad (C&O RR) mainline. So got to hear many trainAND (when it was foggy) tug boat whistles. Doubly blessed!
The sound of Tube trains OVERGROUND is oddly soothing. Chicka-chacka, chicka-chacka. My older daughter's backgarden abuts an overground Tube line. You'd think it would be annoying, but it is possibly the opposite.
Very different to the sound of planes overhead, which is always annoying, even distressing, if they are close enough
There must be some psycho-acoustic explanation for this. Perhaps train-noise mimics the heartbeat in the womb?
I've heard it said that this is why you famously get a great night's kip on a sleeper train (which you often do). The gently rocking movement mimics the baby's cradle/your pregnant mum walking, the noise mimics your mum's throbbing and loving heart
I won't pretend to proffer an alternative explanation, but that sounds like convenient pablum dreamt up by some train marketing executive.
But it would also explain why trains are so uniquely beloved as a form of public transport. No one gets orgasms over buses, or trams, or cable cars, or the DC10. Trains seem to evoke something visceral. The uterus?
As I point out to him, if you Google Miliband’s name, some of the first results are news stories – “million-dollar Miliband” – about his pay packet as charity CEO, which rose to a staggering $911,796 (around £741,883) in 2019 (an increase of nearly £200,000 in the previous two years, and two-and-a-half times the whopping amount enjoyed by his predecessor in the role). It seems to me and I’d guess to most people, I suggest, an extraordinary amount of money to be paid to work on behalf of the dollar-a-day poor. How does he justify it?
He likes to talk in lists, and he gives me a little list of reasons. “I say to people,” he says, “first, it’s right that it’s public. Second, that there’s an independent process that makes these allocations. Third, that I am paid four-fifths of the average of the peer organisations in New York. And finally, I said to people, look, the financial structure of the organisation is that we’re sitting on $125m endowment that yields seven or $8m a year or has done over the past 10 years. And we make sure that our executive salaries are more than covered by the money that comes from the endowment. So anyone who is donating to us can be confident about where their money is going.”
I don't get how these people sleep. Seriously. Fair enough if you're a footballer or a singer or actor or even a model, you have a unique talent, or attribute, which enchants millions of people and makes their lives a tiny bit brighter, so you take home squillions. Life is full of luck and you got lucky and you make the world slightly better.
David Miliband is a fairly smart, rather political geek, that is all. On what planet does that justify a million dollar salary?? ESPECIALLY if your job is "representing the poor". What does he do with the annual $800,000 he does not deserve?
Go AWAY. Get RID.
UGH
He is safe in the knowledge that his work is helping some of the more disadvantaged people in the world. Oh, and he and his family won't have to work another day in their lives if they don't have to. For what it's worth, I'd sleep like a fucking baby.
I see where you're coming from though, incredible sums of money.
His uber-capitalist argument that it's legitimate because it's being creamed off their investment income is a nice touch.
Trains: Possibly the most mournful but beautiful sound remembered from my childhood was the sound of a train's whistle in the far distance over the prairie in the middle of the hot summer night, heard from an isolated small motel somewhere in Kansas.
The noise US trains make is one of a kind and living anywhere near a railway line in a city must be seriously annoying. Someone out there told me all the hooting and whistling and ringing was to do with rules on level crossings.
That’s right. American train horns are loud and tend to sound much more often than in the UK. We live a good mile from the railway but still hear the trains quite clearly. Ironically the subdivision nearest the station is the most upscale in the area, house there go for about half again as much as in our neighbourhood.
Aren’t there far more railway crossings there? I think they have to sound each one they pass over, even if there are barriers.
Yes I think there probably are. Certainly Americans are willing to have level crossings in places Britain would never allow on safety grounds (google “Valhalla train crash” for an example). Also US railroads do not need to be fenced in by law as they are in the UK, and rarely are except where the railroad thinks it’s worth doing so, so trespass on the “right of way” is something American railroaders have to be on the lookout for.
As I point out to him, if you Google Miliband’s name, some of the first results are news stories – “million-dollar Miliband” – about his pay packet as charity CEO, which rose to a staggering $911,796 (around £741,883) in 2019 (an increase of nearly £200,000 in the previous two years, and two-and-a-half times the whopping amount enjoyed by his predecessor in the role). It seems to me and I’d guess to most people, I suggest, an extraordinary amount of money to be paid to work on behalf of the dollar-a-day poor. How does he justify it?
He likes to talk in lists, and he gives me a little list of reasons. “I say to people,” he says, “first, it’s right that it’s public. Second, that there’s an independent process that makes these allocations. Third, that I am paid four-fifths of the average of the peer organisations in New York. And finally, I said to people, look, the financial structure of the organisation is that we’re sitting on $125m endowment that yields seven or $8m a year or has done over the past 10 years. And we make sure that our executive salaries are more than covered by the money that comes from the endowment. So anyone who is donating to us can be confident about where their money is going.”
99% of people in uk will not earn that a year let alone have it as a pay rise
When they come to write the history of the 21st century, and the decline of the west, the monetisation of charities, in this fashion, will be a significant factor. It is outright corruption. leftwing style. All the people in charge give each other vast salaries, and all agree that this is acceptable and correct. Job done.
They forget that this shit undermines public confidence in "giving" and "aid" and makes everyone more cynical
eg Miliband there complains about the UK government dropping back from our aid to Yemen, after giving £50m.
Well, frankly, David, why don't you make up some of the aid PERSONALLY, from your million dollar salary? Why don't you give half of it to Yemen every year? In what universe does anyone, working for a charity, require $900,000 dollars a year to lead a decent and pleasurable life, even in New York City?
David Miliband is earning $4,200 dollars A DAY, $21,000 a WEEK. He earns not far off the UK average annual salary, every week
If Megan is to be believed, she was a prisoner similar to Princess Latifa and her captors were a bunch of massive racists who threatened the safety of her child.
If Megan is to be believed, she was a prisoner similar to Princess Latifa and her captors were a bunch of massive racists who threatened the safety of her child.
I'm watching it unfold on Twitter. A catastrophe for the Royal Family's PR, tho I imagine they will survive.
What is this doing, long term, to Harry and his kids? And everyone else? She's like a fizzling bomb, spinning on the deck of a ship. An exocet aimed at his weakest point.
I just missed that, Harry either said his father doesn't take his calls, or his grandfather.
Its one thing if his 99 year old grandfather, who isn't exactly known for his tack or patience, doesn't want to talk to him to him on the phone, but it will be astonishing if Prince Charles, future king, has disowned him.
I just missed that, Harry either said his father doesn't take his calls, or his grandfather.
Its one thing if his 99 year old grandfather, who isn't exactly known for his tack or patience, doesn't want to talk to him to him on the phone, but it will be astonishing if Prince Charles, future king, has disowned him.
Everybody is getting thrown under the bus. There is absolutely no way back for them. If we thought the briefing were bad leading up to it, I can't imagine how bad it will get going forward.
I just missed that, Harry either said his father doesn't take his calls, or his grandfather.
Its one thing if his 99 year old grandfather, who isn't exactly known for his tack or patience, doesn't want to talk to him to him on the phone, but it will be astonishing if Prince Charles, future king, has disowned him.
He said Charles. This is explosive
The thing is, I actually 100% believe it....unlike some of Megan stuff i.e. I never googled Harry, no idea you actually had to address the Queen properly, I just thought it was for the plebs.
Everybody is getting thrown under the bus. There is absolutely no way back for them. If we thought the briefing were bad leading up to it, I can't imagine how bad it will get going forward.
Everybody is getting thrown under the bus. There is absolutely no way back for them. If we thought the briefing were bad leading up to it, I can't imagine how bad it will get going forward.
It's a nuclear bomb
It is...so far most of the accusations have been more "the system" doesn't let us do this, or the institution doesn't think doing x is right, without actually saying a specific individual.
Bloody hell Harry is throwing the whole family under the bus.
Everybody is getting thrown under the bus. There is absolutely no way back for them. If we thought the briefing were bad leading up to it, I can't imagine how bad it will get going forward.
It's a nuclear bomb
It is...so far most of the accusations have been more "the system" doesn't let us do this, or the institution doesn't think doing x is right, without actually saying a specific individual.
Bloody hell Harry is throwing the whole family under the bus.
If Megan is to be believed, she was a prisoner similar to Princess Latifa and her captors were a bunch of massive racists who threatened the safety of her child.
I'm watching it unfold on Twitter. A catastrophe for the Royal Family's PR, tho I imagine they will survive.
What is this doing, long term, to Harry and his kids? And everyone else? She's like a fizzling bomb, spinning on the deck of a ship. An exocet aimed at his weakest point.
Francis U seems to think this interview is a disaster for Meghan & (at least by extension) Harry.
Leon appears to feel that downside is not quite so one-sided.
EDIT - JUST SAW MOST RECENT COMMENTS ON THIS THRED - YIKES
Not having seen it (yet) cannot judge. Though based on the CNN live blog the interview may NOT be as explosive as some thought in advance? Just heard PBS interview with Sunday Times journo who said Palace sources were fearful of what shocking things M&H might say to Oprah on TV.
Which led me to wonder, what shocking things did they know she & he had GROUNDS to say? OR were highly likely to say with some reasonable semblance of credibility?
The worst stated on CNN blog is that Harry & Meghan say they did NOT get help when they needed it from the Palace establishment.
Many (esp. on PB) will see this as exaggerated, entitled special pleading and privilege.
My own tendency, is to think the problem is less personal, than institutional. Especially given that this newest Royal Family Feud is of course just the latest sequel to a loooooong-running British soap opera that predates even The Archers.
BTW, did the name "Andrew" ever get mentioned? HE is the bad smell that is hovering in the air throughout ANY coverage of the British Royal Family these days.
Wonder what La Maxwell, her lawyers AND prosecutors think about The Interview?
I am not buying any of this they never tried to teach me how to be a royal, even the national athemn.
I have heard Mike Tindall talk about his experiences, and he has been given clear instructions from the beginning, while also finding that actually despite what the your told, it isn't quite as rigid as that and in the right circumstances, its nothing like that. E.g. Tindall sat in his Christmas PJs with the Queen one year as neither could go to church just being silly, including them taking the piss out of her making a mess of Chirstmas message filming.
If Megan is to be believed, she was a prisoner similar to Princess Latifa and her captors were a bunch of massive racists who threatened the safety of her child.
I'm watching it unfold on Twitter. A catastrophe for the Royal Family's PR, tho I imagine they will survive.
What is this doing, long term, to Harry and his kids? And everyone else? She's like a fizzling bomb, spinning on the deck of a ship. An exocet aimed at his weakest point.
Francis U seems to think this interview is a disaster for Meghan & (at least by extension) Harry.
Leon appears to feel that downside is not quite so one-sided.
EDIT - JUST SAW MOST RECENT COMMENTS ON THIS THRED - YIKES
Not having seen it (yet) cannot judge. Though based on the CNN live blog the interview may NOT be as explosive as some thought in advance? Just heard PBS interview with Sunday Times journo who said Palace sources were fearful of what shocking things M&H might say to Oprah on TV.
Which led me to wonder, what shocking things did they know she & he had GROUNDS to say? OR were highly likely to say with some reasonable semblance of credibility?
The worst stated on CNN blog is that Harry & Meghan say they did NOT get help when they needed it from the Palace establishment.
Many (esp. on PB) will see this as exaggerated, entitled special pleading and privilege.
My own tendency, is to think the problem is less personal, than institutional. Especially given that this newest Royal Family Feud is of course just the latest sequel to a loooooong-running British soap opera that predates even The Archers.
BTW, did the name "Andrew" ever get mentioned? HE is the bad smell that is hovering in the air throughout ANY coverage of the British Royal Family these days.
Wonder what La Maxwell, her lawyers AND prosecutors think about The Interview?
No I don't think it is a disaster for Megan. Its really bad for the Royal Family. I have no idea what gives you that idea.
I am just suggesting some of her stories are stretching the truth, to put it mildly, but things like being totaly cut off I totally believe and that looks awful on the Royal Family.
Great grandkids, except of the main line don't get the prince title as per George VI decree in 1917. QEII amended it in 2012 because William's kids not being princes and princesses would be odd. But Harry is now 6th spare.
I am not buying any of this they never tried to teach me how to be a royal, even the national athemn.
That one’s total BS in my opinion. And in any case she’d just do the same as any other American in the UK and mouth the words of “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee”
This is an event that I filter though my memories of my sainted mother, who was both an Irish Catholic American AND a big fan of the British Royal Family.
First royal occasion I remember watching with her on TV, was the investiture of Charles as Prince of Wales. Yours truly was slightly skeptical albeit impressed, while she loved the whole shebang (or Welsh equivalent).
She got even more enjoyment out of the wedding of Charles and Diana. And was dead before they split, so don't know how she'd have reacted to that, and etc., etc.
If Megan is to be believed, she was a prisoner similar to Princess Latifa and her captors were a bunch of massive racists who threatened the safety of her child.
I'm watching it unfold on Twitter. A catastrophe for the Royal Family's PR, tho I imagine they will survive.
What is this doing, long term, to Harry and his kids? And everyone else? She's like a fizzling bomb, spinning on the deck of a ship. An exocet aimed at his weakest point.
Francis U seems to think this interview is a disaster for Meghan & (at least by extension) Harry.
Leon appears to feel that downside is not quite so one-sided.
EDIT - JUST SAW MOST RECENT COMMENTS ON THIS THRED - YIKES
Not having seen it (yet) cannot judge. Though based on the CNN live blog the interview may NOT be as explosive as some thought in advance? Just heard PBS interview with Sunday Times journo who said Palace sources were fearful of what shocking things M&H might say to Oprah on TV.
Which led me to wonder, what shocking things did they know she & he had GROUNDS to say? OR were highly likely to say with some reasonable semblance of credibility?
The worst stated on CNN blog is that Harry & Meghan say they did NOT get help when they needed it from the Palace establishment.
Many (esp. on PB) will see this as exaggerated, entitled special pleading and privilege.
My own tendency, is to think the problem is less personal, than institutional. Especially given that this newest Royal Family Feud is of course just the latest sequel to a loooooong-running British soap opera that predates even The Archers.
BTW, did the name "Andrew" ever get mentioned? HE is the bad smell that is hovering in the air throughout ANY coverage of the British Royal Family these days.
Wonder what La Maxwell, her lawyers AND prosecutors think about The Interview?
I've seen much of the interview, and followed everything on Twitter, Harry's much more bumbling performance (she is an actor, he is not) has defused it, somewhat.
It is not a nuclear bomb, but it is still a bomb. Fizzling. I'm intrigued how The Firm will react.
If Megan is to be believed, she was a prisoner similar to Princess Latifa and her captors were a bunch of massive racists who threatened the safety of her child.
I'm watching it unfold on Twitter. A catastrophe for the Royal Family's PR, tho I imagine they will survive.
What is this doing, long term, to Harry and his kids? And everyone else? She's like a fizzling bomb, spinning on the deck of a ship. An exocet aimed at his weakest point.
Francis U seems to think this interview is a disaster for Meghan & (at least by extension) Harry.
Leon appears to feel that downside is not quite so one-sided.
EDIT - JUST SAW MOST RECENT COMMENTS ON THIS THRED - YIKES
Not having seen it (yet) cannot judge. Though based on the CNN live blog the interview may NOT be as explosive as some thought in advance? Just heard PBS interview with Sunday Times journo who said Palace sources were fearful of what shocking things M&H might say to Oprah on TV.
Which led me to wonder, what shocking things did they know she & he had GROUNDS to say? OR were highly likely to say with some reasonable semblance of credibility?
The worst stated on CNN blog is that Harry & Meghan say they did NOT get help when they needed it from the Palace establishment.
Many (esp. on PB) will see this as exaggerated, entitled special pleading and privilege.
My own tendency, is to think the problem is less personal, than institutional. Especially given that this newest Royal Family Feud is of course just the latest sequel to a loooooong-running British soap opera that predates even The Archers.
BTW, did the name "Andrew" ever get mentioned? HE is the bad smell that is hovering in the air throughout ANY coverage of the British Royal Family these days.
Wonder what La Maxwell, her lawyers AND prosecutors think about The Interview?
No I don't think it is a disaster for Megan. Its really bad for the Royal Family. I have no idea what gives you that idea.
I am just suggesting some of her stories are stretching the truth, to put it mildly, but things like being totaly cut off I totally believe and that looks awful on the Royal Family.
Got that idea, because you were challenging her credibility strongly AND before the bombshells started dropping.
If Megan is to be believed, she was a prisoner similar to Princess Latifa and her captors were a bunch of massive racists who threatened the safety of her child.
I'm watching it unfold on Twitter. A catastrophe for the Royal Family's PR, tho I imagine they will survive.
What is this doing, long term, to Harry and his kids? And everyone else? She's like a fizzling bomb, spinning on the deck of a ship. An exocet aimed at his weakest point.
Francis U seems to think this interview is a disaster for Meghan & (at least by extension) Harry.
Leon appears to feel that downside is not quite so one-sided.
EDIT - JUST SAW MOST RECENT COMMENTS ON THIS THRED - YIKES
Not having seen it (yet) cannot judge. Though based on the CNN live blog the interview may NOT be as explosive as some thought in advance? Just heard PBS interview with Sunday Times journo who said Palace sources were fearful of what shocking things M&H might say to Oprah on TV.
Which led me to wonder, what shocking things did they know she & he had GROUNDS to say? OR were highly likely to say with some reasonable semblance of credibility?
The worst stated on CNN blog is that Harry & Meghan say they did NOT get help when they needed it from the Palace establishment.
Many (esp. on PB) will see this as exaggerated, entitled special pleading and privilege.
My own tendency, is to think the problem is less personal, than institutional. Especially given that this newest Royal Family Feud is of course just the latest sequel to a loooooong-running British soap opera that predates even The Archers.
BTW, did the name "Andrew" ever get mentioned? HE is the bad smell that is hovering in the air throughout ANY coverage of the British Royal Family these days.
Wonder what La Maxwell, her lawyers AND prosecutors think about The Interview?
I've seen much of the interview, and followed everything on Twitter, Harry's much more bumbling performance (she is an actor, he is not) has defused it, somewhat.
It is not a nuclear bomb, but it is still a bomb. Fizzling. I'm intrigued how The Firm will react.
Sending an MI6 assassination squad might be seen as a bit of an overreaction, and probably wouldn’t go down too well with the Biden administration.
If Megan is to be believed, she was a prisoner similar to Princess Latifa and her captors were a bunch of massive racists who threatened the safety of her child.
I'm watching it unfold on Twitter. A catastrophe for the Royal Family's PR, tho I imagine they will survive.
What is this doing, long term, to Harry and his kids? And everyone else? She's like a fizzling bomb, spinning on the deck of a ship. An exocet aimed at his weakest point.
Francis U seems to think this interview is a disaster for Meghan & (at least by extension) Harry.
Leon appears to feel that downside is not quite so one-sided.
EDIT - JUST SAW MOST RECENT COMMENTS ON THIS THRED - YIKES
Not having seen it (yet) cannot judge. Though based on the CNN live blog the interview may NOT be as explosive as some thought in advance? Just heard PBS interview with Sunday Times journo who said Palace sources were fearful of what shocking things M&H might say to Oprah on TV.
Which led me to wonder, what shocking things did they know she & he had GROUNDS to say? OR were highly likely to say with some reasonable semblance of credibility?
The worst stated on CNN blog is that Harry & Meghan say they did NOT get help when they needed it from the Palace establishment.
Many (esp. on PB) will see this as exaggerated, entitled special pleading and privilege.
My own tendency, is to think the problem is less personal, than institutional. Especially given that this newest Royal Family Feud is of course just the latest sequel to a loooooong-running British soap opera that predates even The Archers.
BTW, did the name "Andrew" ever get mentioned? HE is the bad smell that is hovering in the air throughout ANY coverage of the British Royal Family these days.
Wonder what La Maxwell, her lawyers AND prosecutors think about The Interview?
No I don't think it is a disaster for Megan. Its really bad for the Royal Family. I have no idea what gives you that idea.
I am just suggesting some of her stories are stretching the truth, to put it mildly, but things like being totaly cut off I totally believe and that looks awful on the Royal Family.
Got that idea, because you were challenging her credibility strongly AND before the bombshells started dropping.
Stuff like she never googled Harry...its absolute 100% BS.
I am not buying any of this they never tried to teach me how to be a royal, even the national athemn.
I have heard Mike Tindall talk about his experiences, and he has been given clear instructions from the beginning, while also finding that actually despite what the your told, it isn't quite as rigid as that and in the right circumstances, its nothing like that. E.g. Tindall sat in his Christmas PJs with the Queen one year as neither could go to church just being silly, including them taking the piss out of her making a mess of Chirstmas message filming.
OR could it be, that the Palace is so dysfunctional, that a star professional rugby player got better quality staff support, than the consort of a prince of the blood royal?
If Megan is to be believed, she was a prisoner similar to Princess Latifa and her captors were a bunch of massive racists who threatened the safety of her child.
I'm watching it unfold on Twitter. A catastrophe for the Royal Family's PR, tho I imagine they will survive.
What is this doing, long term, to Harry and his kids? And everyone else? She's like a fizzling bomb, spinning on the deck of a ship. An exocet aimed at his weakest point.
Francis U seems to think this interview is a disaster for Meghan & (at least by extension) Harry.
Leon appears to feel that downside is not quite so one-sided.
EDIT - JUST SAW MOST RECENT COMMENTS ON THIS THRED - YIKES
Not having seen it (yet) cannot judge. Though based on the CNN live blog the interview may NOT be as explosive as some thought in advance? Just heard PBS interview with Sunday Times journo who said Palace sources were fearful of what shocking things M&H might say to Oprah on TV.
Which led me to wonder, what shocking things did they know she & he had GROUNDS to say? OR were highly likely to say with some reasonable semblance of credibility?
The worst stated on CNN blog is that Harry & Meghan say they did NOT get help when they needed it from the Palace establishment.
Many (esp. on PB) will see this as exaggerated, entitled special pleading and privilege.
My own tendency, is to think the problem is less personal, than institutional. Especially given that this newest Royal Family Feud is of course just the latest sequel to a loooooong-running British soap opera that predates even The Archers.
BTW, did the name "Andrew" ever get mentioned? HE is the bad smell that is hovering in the air throughout ANY coverage of the British Royal Family these days.
Wonder what La Maxwell, her lawyers AND prosecutors think about The Interview?
No I don't think it is a disaster for Megan. Its really bad for the Royal Family. I have no idea what gives you that idea.
I am just suggesting some of her stories are stretching the truth, to put it mildly, but things like being totaly cut off I totally believe and that looks awful on the Royal Family.
Got that idea, because you were challenging her credibility strongly AND before the bombshells started dropping.
Stuff like she never googled Harry...its absolute 100% BS.
I can believe that it is. But stranger things HAVE actually happened, in the life of the Royal Family, even my own and (maybe) yours?
You certainly have grounds for doubting the full extent of her probity.
BUT could be that there is in fact some there there.
Twitter much less keen on Harry than the professional actress Meghan. Unsurprising.
But what a detonation underneath the Monarchy, nonetheless. And how awfully sad for Harry. Further estranged from his family (probably permanently), his wife gets all the sympathy. He is much diminished; she gains.
Great grandkids, except of the main line don't get the prince title as per George VI decree in 1917. QEII amended it in 2012 because William's kids not being princes and princesses would be odd. But Harry is now 6th spare.
Which is one thing that makes me think this whole mess is due in large measure to piss-poor Palace man-(and woman-)management.
I am not buying any of this they never tried to teach me how to be a royal, even the national athemn.
I have heard Mike Tindall talk about his experiences, and he has been given clear instructions from the beginning, while also finding that actually despite what the your told, it isn't quite as rigid as that and in the right circumstances, its nothing like that. E.g. Tindall sat in his Christmas PJs with the Queen one year as neither could go to church just being silly, including them taking the piss out of her making a mess of Chirstmas message filming.
OR could it be, that the Palace is so dysfunctional, that a star professional rugby player got better quality staff support, than the consort of a prince of the blood royal?
No....the family is dysfunctional, the machinery that supports is a highly organized finely tuned operation. That how the royals have managed to survive for so long and why so much of the world loves the pomp and ceremony that they put on.
Again, a very lowly royal getting clear instruction, a very high profile one, not, is just not believable.
Great grandkids, except of the main line don't get the prince title as per George VI decree in 1917. QEII amended it in 2012 because William's kids not being princes and princesses would be odd. But Harry is now 6th spare.
Which is one thing that makes me think this whole mess is due in large measure to piss-poor Palace man-(and woman-)management.
That isn't the accusation made by Megan and Harry. It is they have been disowned by their own family, in particular his father and brother, and they strongly suspect race played an element.
There were very clear statements of some high profile family members questioning the colour of the skin of their kid and that they won't now talk to them / take their calls.
My sympathies tonight are mostly with two people - Queen and Harry. With a bit left over for Charles.
As for Meghan, what kinds of numbskulls DO they enploy at the Palace, who could believe they were (in their usual hard-boiled, hard-ball way) getting the better of THIS woman???
Logical. AND in this case, UK reaction (long-term anyway) is the more important, obviously.
BUT what Americans think about it is NOT inconsequential to (most) Brits?
Yes, it is inconsequential, in the end- what Americans think. Bad PR anywhere is bad PR, but it matters little in the end, in foreign countries, as opinions evolve and people change. More important is how Australians and Canadians react, that's the danger for the Monarchy. If both, as a result of this, went for Republicanism (more likely Australia), it would eat away at the institution, like rust.
However, there is a plausible and different reaction. This is a compelling twist in a global soap opera (as we can see by your American reaction to a monarchy which has nothing to do with you). There is a sense of: stay involved. Keep watching. Tune in.
This won't endear royals to neutrals, but I am not yet convinced it will cause a surge in anti-monarchism. Apathy may also reign. We shall see
Great grandkids, except of the main line don't get the prince title as per George VI decree in 1917. QEII amended it in 2012 because William's kids not being princes and princesses would be odd. But Harry is now 6th spare.
Which is one thing that makes me think this whole mess is due in large measure to piss-poor Palace man-(and woman-)management.
That isn't the accusation made by Megan and Harry. It is they have been disowned by their own family, in particular his father and brother, and they strongly suspect race played an element.
There were very clear statements of some high profile family members questioning the colour of the skin of their kid and that they won't now talk to them / take their calls.
Your points well taken.
MY point is that a competent Palace establishment SHOULD have been able to head this off at the pass. NOT last month, or even last year. Way BEFORE that.
Logical. AND in this case, UK reaction (long-term anyway) is the more important, obviously.
BUT what Americans think about it is NOT inconsequential to (most) Brits?
Yes, it is inconsequential, in the end- what Americans think. Bad PR anywhere is bad PR, but it matters little in the end, in foreign countries, as opinions evolve and people change. More important is how Australians and Canadians react, that's the danger for the Monarchy. If both, as a result of this, went for Republicanism (more likely Australia), it would eat away at the institution, like rust.
However, there is a plausible and different reaction. This is a compelling twist in a global soap opera (as we can see by your American reaction to a monarchy which has nothing to do with you). There is a sense of: stay involved. Keep watching. Tune in.
This won't endear royals to neutrals, but I am not yet convinced it will cause a surge in anti-monarchism. Apathy may also reign. We shall see
There was a lot made by Meghan of the race element. I think that is extremely dangerous for the Royal Family, given how much of the Commonwealth is non-white.
The interview went beyond the Daily Mail has send stuff that can be seen as racist and that encouraged the racists on social media, the accusations were key members of the Royal Family as massive racists and that is why we are where we are.
We know Prince Philip isn't exactly PC Principal, but the likes of Charles have crafted this image of being more modern, all the eco stuff, worrying about the plight of some newt in the Amazon that is crucial for some tribes existence.
Logical. AND in this case, UK reaction (long-term anyway) is the more important, obviously.
BUT what Americans think about it is NOT inconsequential to (most) Brits?
Yes, it is inconsequential, in the end- what Americans think. Bad PR anywhere is bad PR, but it matters little in the end, in foreign countries, as opinions evolve and people change. More important is how Australians and Canadians react, that's the danger for the Monarchy. If both, as a result of this, went for Republicanism (more likely Australia), it would eat away at the institution, like rust.
However, there is a plausible and different reaction. This is a compelling twist in a global soap opera (as we can see by your American reaction to a monarchy which has nothing to do with you). There is a sense of: stay involved. Keep watching. Tune in.
This won't endear royals to neutrals, but I am not yet convinced it will cause a surge in anti-monarchism. Apathy may also reign. We shall see
There was a lot made by Meghan of the race element. I think that is extremely dangerous for the Royal Family, given how much of the Commonwealth is non-white.
The interview went beyond the Daily Mail has send stuff that can be seen as racist and that encouraged the racists on social media, the accusations were key members of the Royal Family as massive racists and that is why we are where we are.
Great grandkids, except of the main line don't get the prince title as per George VI decree in 1917. QEII amended it in 2012 because William's kids not being princes and princesses would be odd. But Harry is now 6th spare.
Which is one thing that makes me think this whole mess is due in large measure to piss-poor Palace man-(and woman-)management.
That isn't the accusation made by Megan and Harry. It is they have been disowned by their own family, in particular his father and brother, and they strongly suspect race played an element.
There were very clear statements of some high profile family members questioning the colour of the skin of their kid and that they won't now talk to them / take their calls.
I can easily believe the "colour of the child" statement. Because lots of people, in ordinary life, were making the same speculations. What colour will it be, how will people react, etc. It is human nature. This is probably the world's whitest family, certainly the world's most famous family, inviting in a mixed race woman, who gets pregnant. And the royals are known for being waspish and candid - as we see in the Crown (which I believe to be a pretty accurate portrayal).
Those remarks surely were made.
The QUESTION is whether they were made in a racist way (OMFG we don't want a tinted kid!) or just as speculation as to how the public would react to this, which is the job of Royal PR teams - guessing public reaction. There is a world of difference, of course, and there is no conclusive evidence either way
Great grandkids, except of the main line don't get the prince title as per George VI decree in 1917. QEII amended it in 2012 because William's kids not being princes and princesses would be odd. But Harry is now 6th spare.
Which is one thing that makes me think this whole mess is due in large measure to piss-poor Palace man-(and woman-)management.
That isn't the accusation made by Megan and Harry. It is they have been disowned by their own family, in particular his father and brother, and they strongly suspect race played an element.
There were very clear statements of some high profile family members questioning the colour of the skin of their kid and that they won't now talk to them / take their calls.
I can easily believe the "colour of the child" statement. Because lots of people, in ordinary life, were making the same speculations. What colour will it be, how will people react, etc. It is human nature. This is probably the world's whitest family, certainly the world's most famous family, inviting in a mixed race woman, who gets pregnant. And the royals are known for being waspish and candid - as we see in the Crown (which I believe to be a pretty accurate portrayal).
Those remarks surely were made.
The QUESTION is whether they were made in a racist way (OMFG we don't want a tinted kid!) or just as speculation as to how the public would react to this, which is the job of Royal PR teams - guessing public reaction. There is a world of difference, of course, and there is no conclusive evidence either way
How long will it be, before the Palace throws Prince Philip under the bus? (Would NOT be the first time.)
Great grandkids, except of the main line don't get the prince title as per George VI decree in 1917. QEII amended it in 2012 because William's kids not being princes and princesses would be odd. But Harry is now 6th spare.
Which is one thing that makes me think this whole mess is due in large measure to piss-poor Palace man-(and woman-)management.
That isn't the accusation made by Megan and Harry. It is they have been disowned by their own family, in particular his father and brother, and they strongly suspect race played an element.
There were very clear statements of some high profile family members questioning the colour of the skin of their kid and that they won't now talk to them / take their calls.
I can easily believe the "colour of the child" statement. Because lots of people, in ordinary life, were making the same speculations. What colour will it be, how will people react, etc. It is human nature. This is probably the world's whitest family, certainly the world's most famous family, inviting in a mixed race woman, who gets pregnant. And the royals are known for being waspish and candid - as we see in the Crown (which I believe to be a pretty accurate portrayal).
Those remarks surely were made.
The QUESTION is whether they were made in a racist way (OMFG we don't want a tinted kid!) or just as speculation as to how the public would react to this, which is the job of Royal PR teams - guessing public reaction. There is a world of difference, of course, and there is no conclusive evidence either way
Well Meghan's insinuations were the whole way she was treated was because she was mixed race foreigner, not just somebody like Prince Philip said something in his well known manner.
What is undeniable is that they are basically enstranged from the family now, only Queenie is willing to take their calls. The have had an almighty bust up with Charles and William.
Logical. AND in this case, UK reaction (long-term anyway) is the more important, obviously.
BUT what Americans think about it is NOT inconsequential to (most) Brits?
Yes, it is inconsequential, in the end- what Americans think. Bad PR anywhere is bad PR, but it matters little in the end, in foreign countries, as opinions evolve and people change. More important is how Australians and Canadians react, that's the danger for the Monarchy. If both, as a result of this, went for Republicanism (more likely Australia), it would eat away at the institution, like rust.
However, there is a plausible and different reaction. This is a compelling twist in a global soap opera (as we can see by your American reaction to a monarchy which has nothing to do with you). There is a sense of: stay involved. Keep watching. Tune in.
This won't endear royals to neutrals, but I am not yet convinced it will cause a surge in anti-monarchism. Apathy may also reign. We shall see
There was a lot made by Meghan of the race element. I think that is extremely dangerous for the Royal Family, given how much of the Commonwealth is non-white.
The interview went beyond the Daily Mail has send stuff that can be seen as racist and that encouraged the racists on social media, the accusations were key members of the Royal Family as massive racists and that is why we are where we are.
We know Prince Philip isn't exactly PC Principal, but the likes of Charles have crafted this image of being more modern, all the eco stuff, worrying about the plight of some newt in the Amazon that is crucial for some tribes existence.
It is explosive. But M&H can't evidence it, and Harry refused to back it up with names and accusations.
So, hmm. I dunno. All I know is, we now have the Crown, Series 6, a humdinger.
Logical. AND in this case, UK reaction (long-term anyway) is the more important, obviously.
BUT what Americans think about it is NOT inconsequential to (most) Brits?
Yes, it is inconsequential, in the end- what Americans think. Bad PR anywhere is bad PR, but it matters little in the end, in foreign countries, as opinions evolve and people change. More important is how Australians and Canadians react, that's the danger for the Monarchy. If both, as a result of this, went for Republicanism (more likely Australia), it would eat away at the institution, like rust.
However, there is a plausible and different reaction. This is a compelling twist in a global soap opera (as we can see by your American reaction to a monarchy which has nothing to do with you). There is a sense of: stay involved. Keep watching. Tune in.
This won't endear royals to neutrals, but I am not yet convinced it will cause a surge in anti-monarchism. Apathy may also reign. We shall see
There was a lot made by Meghan of the race element. I think that is extremely dangerous for the Royal Family, given how much of the Commonwealth is non-white.
The interview went beyond the Daily Mail has send stuff that can be seen as racist and that encouraged the racists on social media, the accusations were key members of the Royal Family as massive racists and that is why we are where we are.
We know Prince Philip isn't exactly PC Principal, but the likes of Charles have crafted this image of being more modern, all the eco stuff, worrying about the plight of some newt in the Amazon that is crucial for some tribes existence.
It is explosive. But M&H can't evidence it, and Harry refused to back it up with names and accusations.
So, hmm. I dunno. All I know is, we now have the Crown, Series 6, a humdinger.
I think I have more chance of getting an invite to the next Royal wedding than Harry and Meghan...
Trains: Possibly the most mournful but beautiful sound remembered from my childhood was the sound of a train's whistle in the far distance over the prairie in the middle of the hot summer night, heard from an isolated small motel somewhere in Kansas.
When I was a boy in WVa, my hometown was on the Ohio River AND the (then) Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad (C&O RR) mainline. So got to hear many trainAND (when it was foggy) tug boat whistles. Doubly blessed!
The sound of Tube trains OVERGROUND is oddly soothing. Chicka-chacka, chicka-chacka. My older daughter's backgarden abuts an overground Tube line. You'd think it would be annoying, but it is possibly the opposite.
Very different to the sound of planes overhead, which is always annoying, even distressing, if they are close enough
There must be some psycho-acoustic explanation for this. Perhaps train-noise mimics the heartbeat in the womb?
I've heard it said that this is why you famously get a great night's kip on a sleeper train (which you often do). The gently rocking movement mimics the baby's cradle/your pregnant mum walking, the noise mimics your mum's throbbing and loving heart
I won't pretend to proffer an alternative explanation, but that sounds like convenient pablum dreamt up by some train marketing executive.
But it would also explain why trains are so uniquely beloved as a form of public transport. No one gets orgasms over buses, or trams, or cable cars, or the DC10. Trains seem to evoke something visceral. The uterus?
I know people that get all wet thinking about trams.
Politico.com- Cuomo leans on crisis management playbook as walls close in The New York Democrat’s reign as "America’s governor" may have come to an end, but it’s far less certain that his actual governorship is end-stage.
Trains: Possibly the most mournful but beautiful sound remembered from my childhood was the sound of a train's whistle in the far distance over the prairie in the middle of the hot summer night, heard from an isolated small motel somewhere in Kansas.
When I was a boy in WVa, my hometown was on the Ohio River AND the (then) Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad (C&O RR) mainline. So got to hear many trainAND (when it was foggy) tug boat whistles. Doubly blessed!
The sound of Tube trains OVERGROUND is oddly soothing. Chicka-chacka, chicka-chacka. My older daughter's backgarden abuts an overground Tube line. You'd think it would be annoying, but it is possibly the opposite.
Very different to the sound of planes overhead, which is always annoying, even distressing, if they are close enough
There must be some psycho-acoustic explanation for this. Perhaps train-noise mimics the heartbeat in the womb?
I've heard it said that this is why you famously get a great night's kip on a sleeper train (which you often do). The gently rocking movement mimics the baby's cradle/your pregnant mum walking, the noise mimics your mum's throbbing and loving heart
I won't pretend to proffer an alternative explanation, but that sounds like convenient pablum dreamt up by some train marketing executive.
But it would also explain why trains are so uniquely beloved as a form of public transport. No one gets orgasms over buses, or trams, or cable cars, or the DC10. Trains seem to evoke something visceral. The uterus?
I know people that get all wet thinking about trams.
Weird, but true.
And has Leon ever been to San Francisco? Where the cable cars are a civic AND a national legend?
Great grandkids, except of the main line don't get the prince title as per George VI decree in 1917. QEII amended it in 2012 because William's kids not being princes and princesses would be odd. But Harry is now 6th spare.
Which is one thing that makes me think this whole mess is due in large measure to piss-poor Palace man-(and woman-)management.
That isn't the accusation made by Megan and Harry. It is they have been disowned by their own family, in particular his father and brother, and they strongly suspect race played an element.
There were very clear statements of some high profile family members questioning the colour of the skin of their kid and that they won't now talk to them / take their calls.
I can easily believe the "colour of the child" statement. Because lots of people, in ordinary life, were making the same speculations. What colour will it be, how will people react, etc. It is human nature. This is probably the world's whitest family, certainly the world's most famous family, inviting in a mixed race woman, who gets pregnant. And the royals are known for being waspish and candid - as we see in the Crown (which I believe to be a pretty accurate portrayal).
Those remarks surely were made.
The QUESTION is whether they were made in a racist way (OMFG we don't want a tinted kid!) or just as speculation as to how the public would react to this, which is the job of Royal PR teams - guessing public reaction. There is a world of difference, of course, and there is no conclusive evidence either way
How long will it be, before the Palace throws Prince Philip under the bus? (Would NOT be the first time.)
He's 100 years old. From what I hear, sadly, from friends involved (journalistically) in the story, he may not reach 101
That is the next episode in this never ending soap. Philip dies, then the Queen dies. Will Harry stay in LA, and not come to these enormous funerals? They will be like the entire world mourning for its Covid dead.
That's why - I reckon - the monarchy will easily endure this. Almost everyone has a dysfunctional family in some way, or has close and bitter experience of the same. We live out our own tragic psychodramas through them. I pity the performers, but the theatre is brilliant. Don't want it to end!
Comments
When I was young my mum didn’t like travelling on planes, so we got the overnight train to Italy from Calais... and someone shot at it! That wasn’t so relaxing. It was a farmer protesting about something or the other
Lockdowns, or urgings to work from home can't go on. This is not a sustainable way to run society, and hugely damaging for many people.
Yes, people die from flu. People die from other stuff too. Three members of my family have been hit by cancer in the last 3 years. Another one nearly died in ICU from an autoimmune disease. Early thirties. I don't expect sympathy, death comes to us all, but please don't use viruses that have been around since year dot as an excuse to prevent us from living our lives.
Interestingly, this story from the BBC mentions Valance as saying wfh could be one of the "baseline" measures for next winter. He says no such thing in the video:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56312621
We simply can't afford to do it again. It must be avoided at all costs. If that means we get a bad flu season more often - 10,000 excess deaths - so be it. 550,000 die every year.
We have to be a bit flintier, from now on. As it were
Go their and trams are treated in a similar special way to trains elsewhere.
If it was, we wouldn't have done it.
I do not want another lockdown EVER. But I am happy to adopt the Singaporean attitude to masks, if that is the price of freedom: wear one if you feel - or you are - sick with a respiratory bug. It is an altruistic gesture to your fellow humans.
I have nearly been squished by a tram a couple of times. Amsterdam. And, yes, Melbourne
120,000 have died this time. It is ten times worse. As was always said. Ten times more lethal than flu, first time around
The main crunch will I think come over wfh. Say a business can operate with every wfh, but it's somewhat inconvenient. Should it be compulsory, optional or banned? The trend towards "mixed" looks unstoppable - nearly everyone says they'd quite like to work at ho9me some days but not all the time. But if it's say 2 days a week in the office, then there will be consequences - lots more hot-desking in smaller offices for a start.
And what about this?
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3586616/the-new-normal-when-work-from-home-means-the-boss-is-watching.html
It looks astonishingly pervasive in the USA from the figures shown, but I've never heard of it in Britain, apart from a general rule, used mainly in employment disputes, that emails sent on office systems can be read by management. Using the camera to spy on you? Counting the seconds between your keystrokes? How common is this?
Yes, we probably agree on the rest. Let those who want to isolate do so, the world otherwise must go on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pllRW9wETzw
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9336561/Tom-Cruise-surprises-NHS-staff-secret-visit-thank-working-pandemic.html
Or was it a deep fake?
FWIW, I work longer hours than I've ever done except when I was an MP (which is basically an "all waking hours" job if you have a marginal seat - I went to the theatre once in 13 years) - normal day job plus 2-3 hours every evening translating or council stuff. Huge garden? It'd take you 10 seconds to cross my garden. But it's all choice - I could retire and/or have a bigger garden, but I'd rather not (there are better claims on my income).
We probably all know less about each other than we think, because we choose which sides to chat about online. I think the pandemic has been a sobering experience for most of us, so we'll be more a bit more careful. But broadly I agree with you - life will go on, and should do.
He likes to talk in lists, and he gives me a little list of reasons.
“I say to people,” he says, “first, it’s right that it’s public. Second, that there’s an independent process that makes these allocations. Third, that I am paid four-fifths of the average of the peer organisations in New York. And finally, I said to people, look, the financial structure of the organisation is that we’re sitting on $125m endowment that yields seven or $8m a year or has done over the past 10 years. And we make sure that our executive salaries are more than covered by the money that comes from the endowment. So anyone who is donating to us can be confident about where their money is going.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/07/david-miliband-global-britain-that-phrase-rings-hollow
£200k pay rise, must be nice.
I don't get how these people sleep. Seriously. Fair enough if you're a footballer or a singer or actor or even a model, you have a unique talent, or attribute, which enchants millions of people and makes their lives a tiny bit brighter, so you take home squillions. Life is full of luck and you got lucky and you make the world slightly better.
David Miliband is a fairly smart, rather political geek, that is all. On what planet does that justify a million dollar salary?? ESPECIALLY if your job is "representing the poor". What does he do with the annual $800,000 he does not deserve?
Go AWAY. Get RID.
UGH
I see where you're coming from though, incredible sums of money.
And bus spotters are a, um, certain, breed too.
They forget that this shit undermines public confidence in "giving" and "aid" and makes everyone more cynical
eg Miliband there complains about the UK government dropping back from our aid to Yemen, after giving £50m.
Well, frankly, David, why don't you make up some of the aid PERSONALLY, from your million dollar salary? Why don't you give half of it to Yemen every year? In what universe does anyone, working for a charity, require $900,000 dollars a year to lead a decent and pleasurable life, even in New York City?
David Miliband is earning $4,200 dollars A DAY, $21,000 a WEEK. He earns not far off the UK average annual salary, every week
https://twitter.com/megynkelly/status/1368731259657150467
What is this doing, long term, to Harry and his kids? And everyone else? She's like a fizzling bomb, spinning on the deck of a ship. An exocet aimed at his weakest point.
Its one thing if his 99 year old grandfather, who isn't exactly known for his tack or patience, doesn't want to talk to him to him on the phone, but it will be astonishing if Prince Charles, future king, has disowned him.
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1368749337598132225?s=20
Everybody is getting thrown under the bus. There is absolutely no way back for them. If we thought the briefing were bad leading up to it, I can't imagine how bad it will get going forward.
Bloody hell Harry is throwing the whole family under the bus.
Charles' true paternity of Harry will now come up. Inevitable. Always questioned
Leon appears to feel that downside is not quite so one-sided.
EDIT - JUST SAW MOST RECENT COMMENTS ON THIS THRED - YIKES
Not having seen it (yet) cannot judge. Though based on the CNN live blog the interview may NOT be as explosive as some thought in advance? Just heard PBS interview with Sunday Times journo who said Palace sources were fearful of what shocking things M&H might say to Oprah on TV.
Which led me to wonder, what shocking things did they know she & he had GROUNDS to say? OR were highly likely to say with some reasonable semblance of credibility?
The worst stated on CNN blog is that Harry & Meghan say they did NOT get help when they needed it from the Palace establishment.
Many (esp. on PB) will see this as exaggerated, entitled special pleading and privilege.
My own tendency, is to think the problem is less personal, than institutional. Especially given that this newest Royal Family Feud is of course just the latest sequel to a loooooong-running British soap opera that predates even The Archers.
BTW, did the name "Andrew" ever get mentioned? HE is the bad smell that is hovering in the air throughout ANY coverage of the British Royal Family these days.
Wonder what La Maxwell, her lawyers AND prosecutors think about The Interview?
I have heard Mike Tindall talk about his experiences, and he has been given clear instructions from the beginning, while also finding that actually despite what the your told, it isn't quite as rigid as that and in the right circumstances, its nothing like that. E.g. Tindall sat in his Christmas PJs with the Queen one year as neither could go to church just being silly, including them taking the piss out of her making a mess of Chirstmas message filming.
I am just suggesting some of her stories are stretching the truth, to put it mildly, but things like being totaly cut off I totally believe and that looks awful on the Royal Family.
But Harry is now 6th spare.
First royal occasion I remember watching with her on TV, was the investiture of Charles as Prince of Wales. Yours truly was slightly skeptical albeit impressed, while she loved the whole shebang (or Welsh equivalent).
She got even more enjoyment out of the wedding of Charles and Diana. And was dead before they split, so don't know how she'd have reacted to that, and etc., etc.
It is not a nuclear bomb, but it is still a bomb. Fizzling. I'm intrigued how The Firm will react.
You certainly have grounds for doubting the full extent of her probity.
BUT could be that there is in fact some there there.
But what a detonation underneath the Monarchy, nonetheless. And how awfully sad for Harry. Further estranged from his family (probably permanently), his wife gets all the sympathy. He is much diminished; she gains.
Again, a very lowly royal getting clear instruction, a very high profile one, not, is just not believable.
Getting shut out by the family, totally believe.
BUT what Americans think about it is NOT inconsequential to (most) Brits?
There were very clear statements of some high profile family members questioning the colour of the skin of their kid and that they won't now talk to them / take their calls.
As for Meghan, what kinds of numbskulls DO they enploy at the Palace, who could believe they were (in their usual hard-boiled, hard-ball way) getting the better of THIS woman???
However, there is a plausible and different reaction. This is a compelling twist in a global soap opera (as we can see by your American reaction to a monarchy which has nothing to do with you). There is a sense of: stay involved. Keep watching. Tune in.
This won't endear royals to neutrals, but I am not yet convinced it will cause a surge in anti-monarchism. Apathy may also reign. We shall see
MY point is that a competent Palace establishment SHOULD have been able to head this off at the pass. NOT last month, or even last year. Way BEFORE that.
The interview went beyond the Daily Mail has send stuff that can be seen as racist and that encouraged the racists on social media, the accusations were key members of the Royal Family as massive racists and that is why we are where we are.
We know Prince Philip isn't exactly PC Principal, but the likes of Charles have crafted this image of being more modern, all the eco stuff, worrying about the plight of some newt in the Amazon that is crucial for some tribes existence.
Those remarks surely were made.
The QUESTION is whether they were made in a racist way (OMFG we don't want a tinted kid!) or just as speculation as to how the public would react to this, which is the job of Royal PR teams - guessing public reaction. There is a world of difference, of course, and there is no conclusive evidence either way
What is undeniable is that they are basically enstranged from the family now, only Queenie is willing to take their calls. The have had an almighty bust up with Charles and William.
So, hmm. I dunno. All I know is, we now have the Crown, Series 6, a humdinger.
I said I'd rather saw my own arm off.
Weird, but true.
Politico.com- Cuomo leans on crisis management playbook as walls close in
The New York Democrat’s reign as "America’s governor" may have come to an end, but it’s far less certain that his actual governorship is end-stage.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/07/cuomo-crisis-management-playbook-474191
That is the next episode in this never ending soap. Philip dies, then the Queen dies. Will Harry stay in LA, and not come to these enormous funerals? They will be like the entire world mourning for its Covid dead.
That's why - I reckon - the monarchy will easily endure this. Almost everyone has a dysfunctional family in some way, or has close and bitter experience of the same. We live out our own tragic psychodramas through them. I pity the performers, but the theatre is brilliant. Don't want it to end!
And so it continues