Happy 'being allowed to leave your house for recreation' day everyone
I assume the govt are now fully aware that they're massively behind the majority of the public now, in attitudes to lockdown. My only rationalisation of this is that 'holding the line' on being slow will appease the Nick P's of this world...
Whilst many say they support the caution, the streets are really busy again, the roads back to normal levels, and the vaccinated are popping in to see one another. It was so nice to see multi generational families at the seaside over the weekend. The law went far too far on restricting social contact; I trust that we learn from this and never do it again.
Unfortunately I don`t think the government ARE massively behind the majority of the public on this.
Indeed a majority of the public is strongly in favour of draconian rules for other people.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
You don't know history if you don't think Wallis and Edward were Nazi sympathisers.
Thank god he abdicated. We got the right king. We need to ensure that it is never Harry.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
If you mean Chamberlain, well yes, he flew to Munich to try and broker peace. If you mean Churchill, well then no. That's not true.
Saying that a vaccine passport should say which vaccine you got is rather odd. I see no point to that at all.
I agree in an ideal world. I suspect that has been added in case a country decides not to recognise Oxford (for example) and so decides to only recognise a vaccine passport if it specifies an non-Oxford vaccine.
Who knows, maybe we will rule similarly in the case of Russian vaccine??
That's precisely why it should not be done. We shouldn't be encouraging that.
Yes but, pragmatically, travelling to a country Z would become impossible for everyone just because out vaccine passports are insufficiently detailed.
A problem that should be tackled if that situation ever arises.
We shouldn't be facilitating and encouraging that situation to arise. Currently countries and airlines have said they'll require a vaccine, not which vaccine.
I wouldn`t let this detail stop you form supporting the petition though. It`s been instigated (belatedly) as a competitor to the one below, which has 270k signatures:
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
There's a bit more to it than that, though. Their visit was made against the advice of the British government. During it they both gave Nazi salutes. Simpson is on record as having said that the French lost because they were "internally diseased"; in Portugal they were guests of a banker believed to have been a German spy; at the time the same was believed of her, as released FBI files show. The BBC refused to broadcast Edward's speech supporting appeasement before the war. The German ambassador even claimed he had leaked Allied plans for the defence of France. And it is widely believed that had the Germans invaded Britain they would have been plonked back on the throne.
It's very likely that that's what the Queen Mother's letter to Halifax, which has been bizarrely kept secret for another hundred years, is about.
Given we're testing 6.7m kids with lateral flow this week, and the government estimate is that 3 in 1000 will get a false positive, expect to see a spike in 'cases' coming to a government website near you shortly.
Meanwhile Zoe app estimate down 9% again today, positively falling off a cliff last few days and strongly suggesting we're nearing the tipping point where immunity levels are too high for the virus to circulate.
It is absolutely critical that the government gets in front of this and makes it clear that cases are certain to rise, and that that's okay and expected and perfectly fine. Otherwise, we'll be back to the case-number obsessives calling for delays to the roadmap as soon as you can say Jack Robinson.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
Indeed, there was an idiot on here not so long ago denying that the father of Kamala Harris was a black dude.
I still don’t quite understand the latest American usage of ‘black’, or indeed ‘Black’
Does it mean anyone with any African ancestry? If so, that is probably all of us, so it is meaningless. Does it only go back to parents? What about a black grandparent?
Serious question. Careers can end if you get this wrong yet I’ve not seen a precise definition
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
Um. We are talking about the ex-Monarch who gave full Nazi salutes here. Not some random celeb that Hitler happened to be near.
I don't want to get dragged into a full on debate about this, but a lot of decent people gave 'Hitler' salutes before the war. Check out the Berlin olympics footage, football matches etc. Many people in the 30s believed in strong authoritarian government, and absolutely were racists and misogenists too. The difference is what we know now about the depths of depravity of the Nazi regime. Don't forget, the horror of the camps was something that emerged only at the end of the war, at least to the general public (talking about the west here, not within Germany). I don't believe Edward would have supported the holocaust, but being an admirer of a man who had rebuilt Germany, albeit with a totalitarian state, is not the same as being a Nazi.
Though widely travelled, Edward shared a widely held racial prejudice against foreigners and many of the Empire's subjects, believing that whites were inherently superior. In 1920, on his visit to Australia, he wrote of Indigenous Australians: "they are the most revolting form of living creatures I've ever seen!! They are the lowest known form of human beings & are the nearest thing to monkeys."
Given we're testing 6.7m kids with lateral flow this week, and the government estimate is that 3 in 1000 will get a false positive, expect to see a spike in 'cases' coming to a government website near you shortly.
Meanwhile Zoe app estimate down 9% again today, positively falling off a cliff last few days and strongly suggesting we're nearing the tipping point where immunity levels are too high for the virus to circulate.
I thought the lateral flow test gave more false negatives than the PCR test, but didn't give an appreciably larger number of false positives?
I suppose the issue is that number being tested is very large and (more importantly) you are testing people with no prior risk (symptoms or proximity to an existing case).
Does this matter though? I think the schools going back are more of an experiment - to see what happens - than anything else. There will be lots of lovely data to add to the models. There will then be a lot more confidence in taking any further steps.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
There is an episode of Suits where Mike finds out who Rachel's dad is and is surprised and she comments about whether it is so hard to believe her dad is black and if he thinks she just has a year round tan (he makes a joke about not knowing about the dad being black, as he knew she was, he just didn't know she was that guy's daughter).
More seriously, there isn't consistency about whether someone is referred to as mixed race or not as far as I can see. Personal preference maybe? I think Kinabalu may be closer to the situation in respect of media here though.
Certainly race is not always obvious (which is yet another reason racism is so stupid, as if we needed another). I seem to recall a BBC piece from last year I think about a pair of siblings who were mixed race, one of whom looked more 'white' than the other, and how that affected how others had treated them at times.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
You don't know history if you don't think Wallis and Edward were Nazi sympathisers.
Thank god he abdicated. We got the right king. We need to ensure that it is never Harry.
Given we're testing 6.7m kids with lateral flow this week, and the government estimate is that 3 in 1000 will get a false positive, expect to see a spike in 'cases' coming to a government website near you shortly.
Meanwhile Zoe app estimate down 9% again today, positively falling off a cliff last few days and strongly suggesting we're nearing the tipping point where immunity levels are too high for the virus to circulate.
It is absolutely critical that the government gets in front of this and makes it clear that cases are certain to rise, and that that's okay and expected and perfectly fine. Otherwise, we'll be back to the case-number obsessives calling for delays to the roadmap as soon as you can say Jack Robinson.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant, a split in the official figures between PCR and LFTs would be the best way to finesse this.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
I don't see it as sinister and neither is what I'm saying remotely woke. I think from what you've written here you are misinterpreting what I'm getting at.
I'll try and do it more clearly.
My sense (strong sense but no more) is that "we" - the country and the Royals - were ready for a mixed race and (as you say and crucially) not very black looking Princess and that was the boundary. We were not ready - or at least much less ready - for a proper, full on, black black Princess. Meghan was on the right side of the line. We didn't really think of her as black, and this was reflected in the very careful and delicate use of "mixed race" as her descriptor. Something one does not see with the similar example I quoted - all the mixed race footballers who are routinely called black despite looking as far from black black as Meghan. Picture Theo Walcott if it helps.
TLDR: We are comfortable with black footballers but not with a black Princess. The linguistics are a tell of this.
There is no read across from or to the Danny Baker episode.
Two days after my AZ/Oxford jab and I am feeling dreadful. Had a real bad night - fever, chills, terrible muscle pains and severe headache.
I knew there were some fever like effects for a day or so. But this has poleaxed me. Anyone else had a bad reaction? How many days does this last?
Had mine Friday morning. Finished the work day fine till 4pm. Then felt ill and went to bed with all the symptoms you state. Ill Saturday. Woke up Sunday fine. Fine today as well.
Happy 'being allowed to leave your house for recreation' day everyone
I assume the govt are now fully aware that they're massively behind the majority of the public now, in attitudes to lockdown. My only rationalisation of this is that 'holding the line' on being slow will appease the Nick P's of this world...
Whilst many say they support the caution, the streets are really busy again, the roads back to normal levels, and the vaccinated are popping in to see one another. It was so nice to see multi generational families at the seaside over the weekend. The law went far too far on restricting social contact; I trust that we learn from this and never do it again.
I think there's now a fair to middling chance that the roadmap will be liberalised, to some extent. There are some glaring anomalies with it already – the massive England vs Scotland football match at Wembley in Euro 2021 and Royal Ascot are scheduled less than a week before the restrictions are supposed to end! That cannot hold, and I expect a fudge at the very least whereby the government calls them 'test events' and thus allows full crowds.
The bigger question is what happens outside the sporting/music arena? I mean, deaths are likely to fall to averaging double figures this week or next. Are we really going to maintain the rules through Easter and April if the numbers are barely troubling the scorers?
For the first time I am now officially a lockdown sceptic. Id be happy to accept limiting social life to the rule of six outdoors for another month or two, but stay at home orders and only meeting one other person are excessive in the current climate. They are not being followed or enforced anyway.
The trouble is, while-ever the rules are there, they are cause for the judgemental, authoritarian curtain-twitching we see on here daily. Look at the likes of Sandy Rentool – he spends most of his pixel allowance on PB calling those who dare to sidestep or bend a single rule "dickheads" and advocating punishments that wouldn't look out of place in totalitarian regimes.
It is better that rules, and laws, fit the reality, rather people just saying "oh it doesn't matter because they aren't really enforced".
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
You don't know history if you don't think Wallis and Edward were Nazi sympathisers.
Thank god he abdicated. We got the right king. We need to ensure that it is never Harry.
You don't get to choose the monarch.
If you want a say, become a republican.
Nah, just change the Succession Act so we get to vote on candidates of the royal bloodline, elective monarchy is a thing*
Given we're testing 6.7m kids with lateral flow this week, and the government estimate is that 3 in 1000 will get a false positive, expect to see a spike in 'cases' coming to a government website near you shortly.
Meanwhile Zoe app estimate down 9% again today, positively falling off a cliff last few days and strongly suggesting we're nearing the tipping point where immunity levels are too high for the virus to circulate.
It is absolutely critical that the government gets in front of this and makes it clear that cases are certain to rise, and that that's okay and expected and perfectly fine. Otherwise, we'll be back to the case-number obsessives calling for delays to the roadmap as soon as you can say Jack Robinson.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant
This statement under review by the aphorism assessment board.
See also Holly's 'Time is a great healer; unless you've got a rash, in which case you're better off with ointment'
Doesn't 'experience' mean 'lived experience' - anyone help as to what the 'lived' prefix changes?
Its a woke indicator word. Their lived experience is totally different from your experience.
I did think as much. But since you can't have an experience without being alive, I am still none the wiser as to what it's driving at. It sounds illiterate.
Do we know how much H&M received for the interview and if they have donated it to charity? If they have simply pocketed the cash, then that is a black mark against them.
They received no fee according to the Wall Street Journal.
Reading the early comments by TSE and Charles re: The Monarchy, I find myself agreeing with both.
I'm a bit of a soft Republican. If there was no current system in place, I darned well wouldn't consider implementing a monarchy; but given we've got one and had one for more than a millenia with only a decade interuption, then I couldn't be bothered scrapping it.
However, I do agree that they should all bloody well count themselves lucky. Millions of pounds handed to them every year, simply for being born. There aren't many people in the whole world who have that sort of privilage and they really shouldn't try and 'hit back' if they feel someone slights them or their institution.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
I don't see it as sinister and neither is what I'm saying remotely woke. I think from what you've written here you are misinterpreting what I'm getting at.
I'll try and do it more clearly.
My sense (strong sense but no more) is that "we" - the country and the Royals - were ready for a mixed race and (as you say and crucially) not very black looking Princess and that was the boundary. We were not ready - or at least much less ready - for a proper, full on, black black Princess. Meghan was on the right side of the line. We didn't really think of her as black, and this was reflected in the very careful and delicate use of "mixed race" as her descriptor. Something one does not see with the similar example I quoted - all the mixed race footballers who are routinely called black despite looking as far from black black as Meghan. Picture Theo Walcott if it helps.
TLDR: We are comfortable with black footballers but not with a black Princess. The linguistics are a tell of this.
There is no read across from or to the Danny Baker episode.
Ridiculous over-interpretation, retro-fitting reality to satisfy your obsessions
The media don’t call her ‘black’ because she clearly isn’t black, to the average person (who may not be up to speed with the latest critical race theory). It’s like calling the Queen German, there’s an underlying half-truth but anyone that says this generally sounds mad or aggrieved
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
If you mean Chamberlain, well yes, he flew to Munich to try and broker peace. If you mean Churchill, well then no. That's not true.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
How often is Obama referred to as America's first mixed race Pres.?
Never. It's such a very careful label. Yet it was religiously used for Meghan. That's what got me thinking along the lines of my original post.
From her Wikipedia page: Rachel Meghan Markle was born August 4, 1981, in Canoga Park, California, and identifies as being mixed-race.
You are effectively complaining that the UK press were scrupulous in following her wishes as to how she wanted to be described. Unusual side of the debate for you.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
Um. We are talking about the ex-Monarch who gave full Nazi salutes here. Not some random celeb that Hitler happened to be near.
I don't want to get dragged into a full on debate about this, but a lot of decent people gave 'Hitler' salutes before the war. Check out the Berlin olympics footage, football matches etc. Many people in the 30s believed in strong authoritarian government, and absolutely were racists and misogenists too. The difference is what we know now about the depths of depravity of the Nazi regime. Don't forget, the horror of the camps was something that emerged only at the end of the war, at least to the general public (talking about the west here, not within Germany). I don't believe Edward would have supported the holocaust, but being an admirer of a man who had rebuilt Germany, albeit with a totalitarian state, is not the same as being a Nazi.
So you don't want to get into a debate and won't listen to the evidence that has been given to you but continue to say there is nothing in it.
The good lady wife, US citizen, 45, has just been called for her vaccination ahead of your humble Mr Seal, 47, British taxpayer all my life (even as a child I would dutifully send 20p of my 50p pocket money to HMG because it was the right thing to do). You want a transatlantic marriage causing tension? I got one closer to home...bloody foreigners, coming over here taking our vaccines...
Given we're testing 6.7m kids with lateral flow this week, and the government estimate is that 3 in 1000 will get a false positive, expect to see a spike in 'cases' coming to a government website near you shortly.
Meanwhile Zoe app estimate down 9% again today, positively falling off a cliff last few days and strongly suggesting we're nearing the tipping point where immunity levels are too high for the virus to circulate.
I thought the lateral flow test gave more false negatives than the PCR test, but didn't give an appreciably larger number of false positives?
I suppose the issue is that number being tested is very large and (more importantly) you are testing people with no prior risk (symptoms or proximity to an existing case).
Does this matter though? I think the schools going back are more of an experiment - to see what happens - than anything else. There will be lots of lovely data to add to the models. There will then be a lot more confidence in taking any further steps.
Yes lateral flow has a higher false negative rate than PCR. But both seem have a false positive rate that would give 1 or 2 per 1000. Not an issue if you are only doing say 10,000 tests, but yesterday we reported 900,000 tests. However if you test positive and it is a false positive, testing again will almost always be negative (chance of two false positives would be 1 in 1,000,000. So I suspect in a lot of these cases, they will be asked to test again. A second (negative) test would strongly suggest the first was incorrect.
Do we know how much H&M received for the interview and if they have donated it to charity? If they have simply pocketed the cash, then that is a black mark against them.
They received no fee according to the Wall Street Journal.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
There’s a pretty good historical argument that Baldwin forced through the abdication because he was nervous about Windsor’s Nazi leanings.
And IIRC Windsor was going to be the figurehead of a Nazi-occupied Britain
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
How often is Obama referred to as America's first mixed race Pres.?
Never. It's such a very careful label. Yet it was religiously used for Meghan. That's what got me thinking along the lines of my original post.
From her Wikipedia page: Rachel Meghan Markle was born August 4, 1981, in Canoga Park, California, and identifies as being mixed-race.
You are effectively complaining that the UK press were scrupulous in following her wishes as to how she wanted to be described. Unusual side of the debate for you.
Lol!
So her LIVED EXPERIENCE is that of a mixed-race woman. The British media respected this. Kinabalu wants to strip it away and make her ‘black’. Misogynoirist
There was simply not a chance it was Prince Philip.
Prince Philip might say it but there'd be no way that Harry would get angry with him in the same way. For it to be considered malicious it would have to be someone else.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
If you mean Chamberlain, well yes, he flew to Munich to try and broker peace. If you mean Churchill, well then no. That's not true.
I clearly meant Chamberlain - Churchill wasn't PM until 1940...
I thought perhaps you meant before WC became PM. The British sitting PM meeting Hitler on the eve or war to treat, is somewhat different to David Windsor's circumstances.
Read up a bit if you still feel this was just a case of him happening to be in the same photo as photo. "Well yes I did meet Hitler, but it wasn't a party! It was a perfectly straightforward shooting weekend".
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
Um. We are talking about the ex-Monarch who gave full Nazi salutes here. Not some random celeb that Hitler happened to be near.
I don't want to get dragged into a full on debate about this, but a lot of decent people gave 'Hitler' salutes before the war. Check out the Berlin olympics footage, football matches etc. Many people in the 30s believed in strong authoritarian government, and absolutely were racists and misogenists too. The difference is what we know now about the depths of depravity of the Nazi regime. Don't forget, the horror of the camps was something that emerged only at the end of the war, at least to the general public (talking about the west here, not within Germany). I don't believe Edward would have supported the holocaust, but being an admirer of a man who had rebuilt Germany, albeit with a totalitarian state, is not the same as being a Nazi.
So you don't want to get into a debate and won't listen to the evidence that has been given to you but continue to say there is nothing in it.
I'm happy to concede that there is evidence of his politics (did you even read what I wrote?). Was he a Nazi? Of course not.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
Danny Baker is a laddish loudmouth broadcaster, long-time friend of Chris Evans, a well-known republican and a life-long Labour activist.
I think he thought he thought he was making some powerful republican/class-war point by his tweet - by comparing the monarchy to a circus that the crowds lap up - but, boy oh boy, how stupid was he?
He should have been able to tell himself in 2 seconds that the tweet was a stupid idea as he was drafting it, but he just couldn't see it.
His impulsive personality is totally ill-suited to Twitter. And that's why it can be such a dangerous platform because it has real-world consequences.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
Um. We are talking about the ex-Monarch who gave full Nazi salutes here. Not some random celeb that Hitler happened to be near.
I don't want to get dragged into a full on debate about this, but a lot of decent people gave 'Hitler' salutes before the war. Check out the Berlin olympics footage, football matches etc. Many people in the 30s believed in strong authoritarian government, and absolutely were racists and misogenists too. The difference is what we know now about the depths of depravity of the Nazi regime. Don't forget, the horror of the camps was something that emerged only at the end of the war, at least to the general public (talking about the west here, not within Germany). I don't believe Edward would have supported the holocaust, but being an admirer of a man who had rebuilt Germany, albeit with a totalitarian state, is not the same as being a Nazi.
So you don't want to get into a debate and won't listen to the evidence that has been given to you but continue to say there is nothing in it.
I'm happy to concede that there is evidence of his politics (did you even read what I wrote?). Was he a Nazi? Of course not.
I'm not sure the line between nazi and nazi sympathiser is a thick one.
There was simply not a chance it was Prince Philip.
Prince Philip might say it but there'd be no way that Harry would get angry with him in the same way. For it to be considered malicious it would have to be someone else.
Jonathan Dimbleby on WatO saying he did not believe it was Charles either. Completely out of character for a man he has known a long time.
There was simply not a chance it was Prince Philip.
Prince Philip might say it but there'd be no way that Harry would get angry with him in the same way. For it to be considered malicious it would have to be someone else.
They will eventually have to give a name. Not giving a name implies it must be someone so important they can’t be named. ie Charles or William. So the speculation will run on and on
We should make some odds.
More seriously, I don’t see how this ends well for any of them. On all sides
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
If you mean Chamberlain, well yes, he flew to Munich to try and broker peace. If you mean Churchill, well then no. That's not true.
I clearly meant Chamberlain - Churchill wasn't PM until 1940...
I thought perhaps you meant before WC became PM. The British sitting PM meeting Hitler on the eve or war to treat, is somewhat different to David Windsor's circumstances.
Read up a bit if you still feel this was just a case of him happening to be in the same photo as photo. "Well yes I did meet Hitler, but it wasn't a party! It was a perfectly straightforward shooting weekend".
I've read loads about the period. I'm happy to concede others may have different views on how far his opinions went, but its not true to say he was a Nazi.
Reporting on WATO that Meghan claimed references to Archie's skin colour were "several times, during her pregnancy" while Harry said it was "once, before they married"......
Doesn't 'experience' mean 'lived experience' - anyone help as to what the 'lived' prefix changes?
The phrase "lived experience" is used in reference to a "person of colour" describing their own life experiences.
It's on the basis that you'd never understand what it's like to live in their shoes so you shouldn't challenge what they say, but only accept it.
It's sometimes used to contrast with professional experience. So your experience of having had poor mental health, rather than your experience of being a professional in the field and treating others. Of course you may have both. In your example the qualifier seems otiose, though.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
Indeed, there was an idiot on here not so long ago denying that the father of Kamala Harris was a black dude.
I still don’t quite understand the latest American usage of ‘black’, or indeed ‘Black’
Does it mean anyone with any African ancestry? If so, that is probably all of us, so it is meaningless. Does it only go back to parents? What about a black grandparent?
Serious question. Careers can end if you get this wrong yet I’ve not seen a precise definition
In the UK, we'd probably only call someone black Black. Otherwise they'd be mixed race.
In the USA, I think anyone with 1/2 (and sometimes 1/4) black heritage can be Black, and there are also lots of rules around when and how you can say Black, as opposed to person of colour or African American or similar, and it's not something I'd be confident of always getting right.
There was simply not a chance it was Prince Philip.
Prince Philip might say it but there'd be no way that Harry would get angry with him in the same way. For it to be considered malicious it would have to be someone else.
Jonathan Dimbleby on WatO saying he did not believe it was Charles either. Completely out of character for a man he has known a long time.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
If you mean Chamberlain, well yes, he flew to Munich to try and broker peace. If you mean Churchill, well then no. That's not true.
I clearly meant Chamberlain - Churchill wasn't PM until 1940...
I thought perhaps you meant before WC became PM. The British sitting PM meeting Hitler on the eve or war to treat, is somewhat different to David Windsor's circumstances.
Read up a bit if you still feel this was just a case of him happening to be in the same photo as photo. "Well yes I did meet Hitler, but it wasn't a party! It was a perfectly straightforward shooting weekend".
Jews, communists, social democrats, whatever took your fancy.
Doesn't 'experience' mean 'lived experience' - anyone help as to what the 'lived' prefix changes?
The phrase "lived experience" is used in reference to a "person of colour" describing their own life experiences.
It's on the basis that you'd never understand what it's like to live in their shoes so you shouldn't challenge what they say, but only accept it.
Yes, the term helps us to avoid the terrible faux pas of assuming that as human beings all of our experiences are equally valid...
In reality, it's only half-true.
Yes, I have little idea how it feels and what it's like to walk in the shoes of someone of a different race - I suspect you are looked at and treated differently, and that's often annoying and sometimes unpleasant. My wife regularly gets asked "where are you from?" because she has a bit of an accent. I am treated automatically as a bit "posh" - which is usually, but not always, a benefit - and very rarely get looked at or treated differently.
That still doesn't mean I take Meghan at her word on everything she says, particularly when she says she was victimised by everyone and there are other competing (and often more credible) sources that say something quite different.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
There is an episode of Suits where Mike finds out who Rachel's dad is and is surprised and she comments about whether it is so hard to believe her dad is black and if he thinks she just has a year round tan (he makes a joke about not knowing about the dad being black, as he knew she was, he just didn't know she was that guy's daughter).
More seriously, there isn't consistency about whether someone is referred to as mixed race or not as far as I can see. Personal preference maybe? I think Kinabalu may be closer to the situation in respect of media here though.
Certainly race is not always obvious (which is yet another reason racism is so stupid, as if we needed another). I seem to recall a BBC piece from last year I think about a pair of siblings who were mixed race, one of whom looked more 'white' than the other, and how that affected how others had treated them at times.
Yes, I'm talking about the studied and delicate way that she was always "mixed race" when, for example, the legions of similarly mixed race footballers are very often "black".
For me, this is evidence of us being less comfortable with a black bride for Harry than we are with a black striker for England.
I could be overthinking it but I don't think I am. And I offer the thought as being potentially very fascinating. People can disagree but it should not be just written off unthinkingly as me being "woke". That would be disappointing and unworthy of a board such as this.
Do we know how much H&M received for the interview and if they have donated it to charity? If they have simply pocketed the cash, then that is a black mark against them.
They received no fee according to the Wall Street Journal.
There was simply not a chance it was Prince Philip.
Prince Philip might say it but there'd be no way that Harry would get angry with him in the same way. For it to be considered malicious it would have to be someone else.
Jonathan Dimbleby on WatO saying he did not believe it was Charles either. Completely out of character for a man he has known a long time.
Leaves William then?
Princess Michael, Camilla, Andrew, Anne or Edward, in that order, I would say, from most likely to least. All a bit scurrilous of me, I think.
I should do something improving later in the afternoon to atone, I think, and to stop feeling dirtied - perhaps manual labour.
There was simply not a chance it was Prince Philip.
Prince Philip might say it but there'd be no way that Harry would get angry with him in the same way. For it to be considered malicious it would have to be someone else.
They will eventually have to give a name. Not giving a name implies it must be someone so important they can’t be named. ie Charles or William. So the speculation will run on and on
We should make some odds.
More seriously, I don’t see how this ends well for any of them. On all sides
The more important point is that this, if it ever happened, and if it was malevolent (two big ifs which I'm not going to be drawn on), is the attitude of a large number of people in the UK, from working men's clubs to Gentlemen's clubs.
If this publicity helps to make such pronouncements beyond the pale then I suppose that is a plus.
Reading the early comments by TSE and Charles re: The Monarchy, I find myself agreeing with both.
I'm a bit of a soft Republican. If there was no current system in place, I darned well wouldn't consider implementing a monarchy; but given we've got one and had one for more than a millenia with only a decade interuption, then I couldn't be bothered scrapping it.
However, I do agree that they should all bloody well count themselves lucky. Millions of pounds handed to them every year, simply for being born. There aren't many people in the whole world who have that sort of privilage and they really shouldn't try and 'hit back' if they feel someone slights them or their institution.
Republicans should be 15-20% of the population. They are about 40-50% of active posters on here, if not more so, and that's across party.
That says quite a lot about the types of people who post on here, quite frankly, and not much more - we're also weirdly interested in things like betting, voting reform, quantitative analysis and computer games.
There was simply not a chance it was Prince Philip.
Prince Philip might say it but there'd be no way that Harry would get angry with him in the same way. For it to be considered malicious it would have to be someone else.
Jonathan Dimbleby on WatO saying he did not believe it was Charles either. Completely out of character for a man he has known a long time.
Leaves William then?
Camilla, Andrew, Edward, or Princess Michael, I think.
Do we know how much H&M received for the interview and if they have donated it to charity? If they have simply pocketed the cash, then that is a black mark against them.
They received no fee according to the Wall Street Journal.
We're eventually going to find out it's some distant elderly cousin who's not technically a Royal, aren't we?
Occam`s Razor: I`d go 75% they are lying, 15% H&M imagined something trivial they took offense over, 10% something racist was actually said.
I don't think they're lying. My best guess is they took offence to something clumsy where no offence was meant, and which in other circumstances could have been smoothed over relatively easily.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
Danny Baker is a laddish loudmouth broadcaster, long-time friend of Chris Evans, a well-known republican and a life-long Labour activist.
I think he thought he thought he was making some powerful republican/class-war point by his tweet - by comparing the monarchy to a circus that the crowds lap up - but, boy oh boy, how stupid was he?
He should have been able to tell himself in 2 seconds that the tweet was a stupid idea as he was drafting it, but he just couldn't see it.
His impulsive personality is totally ill-suited to Twitter. And that's why it can be such a dangerous platform because it has real-world consequences.
Not disputing any of that - tho in fairness it’s worth pointing out that Baker is also very funny, at times, and an excellent broadcaster.
My argument is that he made the horrible monkey joke because he literally did not grasp that MM has a black father. Because she really does not look black, as we’ve established today
Does anyone else find it depressing that we’ve gone back to obsessing about race? As in, who is *really* black. How many drops of blood make you Black. Soon we’ll be talking about octoroons. It does not feel like progress. Quite the opposite
Reading the early comments by TSE and Charles re: The Monarchy, I find myself agreeing with both.
I'm a bit of a soft Republican. If there was no current system in place, I darned well wouldn't consider implementing a monarchy; but given we've got one and had one for more than a millenia with only a decade interuption, then I couldn't be bothered scrapping it.
However, I do agree that they should all bloody well count themselves lucky. Millions of pounds handed to them every year, simply for being born. There aren't many people in the whole world who have that sort of privilage and they really shouldn't try and 'hit back' if they feel someone slights them or their institution.
Republicans should be 15-20% of the population. They are about 40-50% of active posters on here, if not more so, and that's across party.
That says quite a lot about the types of people who post on here, quite frankly, and not much more - we're also weirdly interested in things like betting, voting reform, quantitative analysis and computer games.
Only 43% of population think the country would be worse off if the monarchy was abolished.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
Danny Baker is a laddish loudmouth broadcaster, long-time friend of Chris Evans, a well-known republican and a life-long Labour activist.
I think he thought he thought he was making some powerful republican/class-war point by his tweet - by comparing the monarchy to a circus that the crowds lap up - but, boy oh boy, how stupid was he?
He should have been able to tell himself in 2 seconds that the tweet was a stupid idea as he was drafting it, but he just couldn't see it.
His impulsive personality is totally ill-suited to Twitter. And that's why it can be such a dangerous platform because it has real-world consequences.
Not disputing any of that - tho in fairness it’s worth pointing out that Baker is also very funny, at times, and an excellent broadcaster.
My argument is that he made the horrible monkey joke because he literally did not grasp that MM has a black father. Because she really does not look black, as we’ve established today
Does anyone else find it depressing that we’ve gone back to obsessing about race? As in, who is *really* black. How many drops of blood make you Black. Soon we’ll be talking about octoroons. It does not feel like progress. Quite the opposite
Worry no more.
@kinabalu can tell us who is "proper black" and so we will be able to avoid such confusion in future.
Two wall charts this morning - one from @HYUFD on people who are proper Tories and one from @kinabalu on people who are "proper black".
Doesn't 'experience' mean 'lived experience' - anyone help as to what the 'lived' prefix changes?
The phrase "lived experience" is used in reference to a "person of colour" describing their own life experiences.
It's on the basis that you'd never understand what it's like to live in their shoes so you shouldn't challenge what they say, but only accept it.
It's sometimes used to contrast with professional experience. So your experience of having had poor mental health, rather than your experience of being a professional in the field and treating others. Of course you may have both. In your example the qualifier seems otiose, though.
Indeed. To use another example. One may be one of the foremost, eminent scholars of the Holocaust. Your knowledge will necessarily not be comparable to one who lived through it.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
There is an episode of Suits where Mike finds out who Rachel's dad is and is surprised and she comments about whether it is so hard to believe her dad is black and if he thinks she just has a year round tan (he makes a joke about not knowing about the dad being black, as he knew she was, he just didn't know she was that guy's daughter).
More seriously, there isn't consistency about whether someone is referred to as mixed race or not as far as I can see. Personal preference maybe? I think Kinabalu may be closer to the situation in respect of media here though.
Certainly race is not always obvious (which is yet another reason racism is so stupid, as if we needed another). I seem to recall a BBC piece from last year I think about a pair of siblings who were mixed race, one of whom looked more 'white' than the other, and how that affected how others had treated them at times.
Yes, I'm talking about the studied and delicate way that she was always "mixed race" when, for example, the legions of similarly mixed race footballers are very often "black".
For me, this is evidence of us being less comfortable with a black bride for Harry than we are with a black striker for England.
I could be overthinking it but I don't think I am. And I offer the thought as being potentially very fascinating. People can disagree but it should not be just written off unthinkingly as me being "woke". That would be disappointing and unworthy of a board such as this.
SHE SELF-IDENTIFIES AS ‘MIXED RACE’
If the media called her anything else you’d be jumping on them for that. Give up
Doesn't 'experience' mean 'lived experience' - anyone help as to what the 'lived' prefix changes?
The phrase "lived experience" is used in reference to a "person of colour" describing their own life experiences.
It's on the basis that you'd never understand what it's like to live in their shoes so you shouldn't challenge what they say, but only accept it.
It's sometimes used to contrast with professional experience. So your experience of having had poor mental health, rather than your experience of being a professional in the field and treating others. Of course you may have both. In your example the qualifier seems otiose, though.
In that case, I would say in my personal experience.
Lived experience is a bit wokey and designed to avoid any challenge, rather than the benefit of the doubt.
It's a bit like the shibboleth that's "it's not the job of people of colour" to educate you on racism - read my book, and accept what I say, instead.
I wrote a thread header on this last year. I ignored it and spoke to a lot of black colleagues of mine instead, and learnt a lot through doing so, which was far more nuanced. And we even debated one or two points.
None of them objected and all were pleased I asked.
Reading the early comments by TSE and Charles re: The Monarchy, I find myself agreeing with both.
I'm a bit of a soft Republican. If there was no current system in place, I darned well wouldn't consider implementing a monarchy; but given we've got one and had one for more than a millenia with only a decade interuption, then I couldn't be bothered scrapping it.
However, I do agree that they should all bloody well count themselves lucky. Millions of pounds handed to them every year, simply for being born. There aren't many people in the whole world who have that sort of privilage and they really shouldn't try and 'hit back' if they feel someone slights them or their institution.
Republicans should be 15-20% of the population. They are about 40-50% of active posters on here, if not more so, and that's across party.
That says quite a lot about the types of people who post on here, quite frankly, and not much more - we're also weirdly interested in things like betting, voting reform, quantitative analysis and computer games.
Only 43% of population think the country would be worse off if the monarchy was abolished.
You're the minority on here and the country.
That's like pointing out Tories got a minority of votes. It's true but it was still by far the more popular option so anything else was even more a minority.
There was simply not a chance it was Prince Philip.
Prince Philip might say it but there'd be no way that Harry would get angry with him in the same way. For it to be considered malicious it would have to be someone else.
Jonathan Dimbleby on WatO saying he did not believe it was Charles either. Completely out of character for a man he has known a long time.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
If you mean Chamberlain, well yes, he flew to Munich to try and broker peace. If you mean Churchill, well then no. That's not true.
I clearly meant Chamberlain - Churchill wasn't PM until 1940...
I thought perhaps you meant before WC became PM. The British sitting PM meeting Hitler on the eve or war to treat, is somewhat different to David Windsor's circumstances.
Read up a bit if you still feel this was just a case of him happening to be in the same photo as photo. "Well yes I did meet Hitler, but it wasn't a party! It was a perfectly straightforward shooting weekend".
Jews, communists, social democrats, whatever took your fancy.
Communists? Stalin made a pact with Hitler 1939-1941...
Doesn't 'experience' mean 'lived experience' - anyone help as to what the 'lived' prefix changes?
The phrase "lived experience" is used in reference to a "person of colour" describing their own life experiences.
It's on the basis that you'd never understand what it's like to live in their shoes so you shouldn't challenge what they say, but only accept it.
It's sometimes used to contrast with professional experience. So your experience of having had poor mental health, rather than your experience of being a professional in the field and treating others. Of course you may have both. In your example the qualifier seems otiose, though.
In that case, I would say in my personal experience.
Lived experience is a bit wokey and designed to avoid any challenge, rather than the benefit of the doubt.
It's a bit like the shibboleth that's "it's not the job of people of colour" to educate you on racism - read my book, and accept what I say, instead.
I wrote a thread header on this last year. I ignored it and spoke to a lot of black colleagues of mine instead, and learnt a lot through doing so, which was far more nuanced. And we even debated one or two points.
None of them objected and all were pleased I asked.
Take clowns. Don't bother me but apparently they scare the bejeezus out of many.
If one such person and I were walking down the street and there was a clown in the window of a house, one of us would be scared and the other would be untroubled.
Their lived experience would be of fear, mine not.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
He is a supporter of the Labour Party, don't forget. They have form in these things. Don't blame him, it is the institution.
It's an apolitical observation from me, in fact. And I could be wrong - but let's face it that's unlikely.
That's true. But as with vaccine efficacy 92% is not 100% and I fear this is part of your 8%.
In fact, annualised, you have used up your 8% quotas for the next few years but I am really looking forward to your solid, absolutely incontrovertible 92% posts.
Chuckle. But bantering aside - I offered the OpEd that Meghan's acceptance here as bride of Harry would have been less widespread and sincere if she had been "proper" black rather than mixed race. It's not particularly provable or otherwise, but do you not feel that?
'"proper" black' are you fucking serious?
"And somebody said I wasn't a "proper" black."
Will somebody please pick Oprah's jaw back up off the floor?
There was simply not a chance it was Prince Philip.
Prince Philip might say it but there'd be no way that Harry would get angry with him in the same way. For it to be considered malicious it would have to be someone else.
Jonathan Dimbleby on WatO saying he did not believe it was Charles either. Completely out of character for a man he has known a long time.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
Danny Baker is a laddish loudmouth broadcaster, long-time friend of Chris Evans, a well-known republican and a life-long Labour activist.
I think he thought he thought he was making some powerful republican/class-war point by his tweet - by comparing the monarchy to a circus that the crowds lap up - but, boy oh boy, how stupid was he?
He should have been able to tell himself in 2 seconds that the tweet was a stupid idea as he was drafting it, but he just couldn't see it.
His impulsive personality is totally ill-suited to Twitter. And that's why it can be such a dangerous platform because it has real-world consequences.
Not disputing any of that - tho in fairness it’s worth pointing out that Baker is also very funny, at times, and an excellent broadcaster.
My argument is that he made the horrible monkey joke because he literally did not grasp that MM has a black father. Because she really does not look black, as we’ve established today
Does anyone else find it depressing that we’ve gone back to obsessing about race? As in, who is *really* black. How many drops of blood make you Black. Soon we’ll be talking about octoroons. It does not feel like progress. Quite the opposite
Worry no more.
@kinabalu can tell us who is "proper black" and so we will be able to avoid such confusion in future.
Two wall charts this morning - one from @HYUFD on people who are proper Tories and one from @kinabalu on people who are "proper black".
Happy 'being allowed to leave your house for recreation' day everyone
I assume the govt are now fully aware that they're massively behind the majority of the public now, in attitudes to lockdown. My only rationalisation of this is that 'holding the line' on being slow will appease the Nick P's of this world...
Whilst many say they support the caution, the streets are really busy again, the roads back to normal levels, and the vaccinated are popping in to see one another. It was so nice to see multi generational families at the seaside over the weekend. The law went far too far on restricting social contact; I trust that we learn from this and never do it again.
I think there's now a fair to middling chance that the roadmap will be liberalised, to some extent. There are some glaring anomalies with it already – the massive England vs Scotland football match at Wembley in Euro 2021 and Royal Ascot are scheduled less than a week before the restrictions are supposed to end! That cannot hold, and I expect a fudge at the very least whereby the government calls them 'test events' and thus allows full crowds.
The bigger question is what happens outside the sporting/music arena? I mean, deaths are likely to fall to averaging double figures this week or next. Are we really going to maintain the rules through Easter and April if the numbers are barely troubling the scorers?
For the first time I am now officially a lockdown sceptic. Id be happy to accept limiting social life to the rule of six outdoors for another month or two, but stay at home orders and only meeting one other person are excessive in the current climate. They are not being followed or enforced anyway.
The trouble is, while-ever the rules are there, they are cause for the judgemental, authoritarian curtain-twitching we see on here daily. Look at the likes of Sandy Rentool – he spends most of his pixel allowance on PB calling those who dare to sidestep or bend a single rule "dickheads" and advocating punishments that wouldn't look out of place in totalitarian regimes.
It is better that rules, and laws, fit the reality, rather people just saying "oh it doesn't matter because they aren't really enforced".
Absolutely. Laws should be widely understood, accepted and enforced, bad ones that arent should be removed or changed. The continuous spew of new laws that are infrequently and incoherently enforced brings the law and govt into disrepute. This was a problem well before covid, but obviously covid has made the problem bigger.
Comments
If you mean Chamberlain, well yes, he flew to Munich to try and broker peace. If you mean Churchill, well then no. That's not true.
https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/did-winston-churchill-adolf-hitler-ever-meet/
It is absolutely critical that the government gets in front of this and makes it clear that cases are certain to rise, and that that's okay and expected and perfectly fine. Otherwise, we'll be back to the case-number obsessives calling for delays to the roadmap as soon as you can say Jack Robinson.
Does it mean anyone with any African ancestry? If so, that is probably all of us, so it is meaningless. Does it only go back to parents? What about a black grandparent?
Serious question. Careers can end if you get this wrong yet I’ve not seen a precise definition
I suppose the issue is that number being tested is very large and (more importantly) you are testing people with no prior risk (symptoms or proximity to an existing case).
Does this matter though? I think the schools going back are more of an experiment - to see what happens - than anything else. There will be lots of lovely data to add to the models. There will then be a lot more confidence in taking any further steps.
More seriously, there isn't consistency about whether someone is referred to as mixed race or not as far as I can see. Personal preference maybe? I think Kinabalu may be closer to the situation in respect of media here though.
Certainly race is not always obvious (which is yet another reason racism is so stupid, as if we needed another). I seem to recall a BBC piece from last year I think about a pair of siblings who were mixed race, one of whom looked more 'white' than the other, and how that affected how others had treated them at times.
If you want a say, become a republican.
I'll try and do it more clearly.
My sense (strong sense but no more) is that "we" - the country and the Royals - were ready for a mixed race and (as you say and crucially) not very black looking Princess and that was the boundary. We were not ready - or at least much less ready - for a proper, full on, black black Princess. Meghan was on the right side of the line. We didn't really think of her as black, and this was reflected in the very careful and delicate use of "mixed race" as her descriptor. Something one does not see with the similar example I quoted - all the mixed race footballers who are routinely called black despite looking as far from black black as Meghan. Picture Theo Walcott if it helps.
TLDR: We are comfortable with black footballers but not with a black Princess. The linguistics are a tell of this.
There is no read across from or to the Danny Baker episode.
Finished the work day fine till 4pm. Then felt ill and went to bed with all the symptoms you state.
Ill Saturday.
Woke up Sunday fine. Fine today as well.
It is better that rules, and laws, fit the reality, rather people just saying "oh it doesn't matter because they aren't really enforced".
*ok, that's not how elective monarchy works.
See also Holly's 'Time is a great healer; unless you've got a rash, in which case you're better off with ointment'
I just can’t see MM handing someone $10m without a cut
I'm a bit of a soft Republican. If there was no current system in place, I darned well wouldn't consider implementing a monarchy; but given we've got one and had one for more than a millenia with only a decade interuption, then I couldn't be bothered scrapping it.
However, I do agree that they should all bloody well count themselves lucky. Millions of pounds handed to them every year, simply for being born. There aren't many people in the whole world who have that sort of privilage and they really shouldn't try and 'hit back' if they feel someone slights them or their institution.
The media don’t call her ‘black’ because she clearly isn’t black, to the average person (who may not be up to speed with the latest critical race theory). It’s like calling the Queen German, there’s an underlying half-truth but anyone that says this generally sounds mad or aggrieved
Rachel Meghan Markle was born August 4, 1981, in Canoga Park, California, and identifies as being mixed-race.
You are effectively complaining that the UK press were scrupulous in following her wishes as to how she wanted to be described. Unusual side of the debate for you.
It's on the basis that you'd never understand what it's like to live in their shoes so you shouldn't challenge what they say, but only accept it.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
And IIRC Windsor was going to be the figurehead of a Nazi-occupied Britain
So her LIVED EXPERIENCE is that of a mixed-race woman. The British media respected this. Kinabalu wants to strip it away and make her ‘black’. Misogynoirist
There was simply not a chance it was Prince Philip.
Prince Philip might say it but there'd be no way that Harry would get angry with him in the same way. For it to be considered malicious it would have to be someone else.
Read up a bit if you still feel this was just a case of him happening to be in the same photo as photo. "Well yes I did meet Hitler, but it wasn't a party! It was a perfectly straightforward shooting weekend".
I think he thought he thought he was making some powerful republican/class-war point by his tweet - by comparing the monarchy to a circus that the crowds lap up - but, boy oh boy, how stupid was he?
He should have been able to tell himself in 2 seconds that the tweet was a stupid idea as he was drafting it, but he just couldn't see it.
His impulsive personality is totally ill-suited to Twitter. And that's why it can be such a dangerous platform because it has real-world consequences.
We should make some odds.
More seriously, I don’t see how this ends well for any of them. On all sides
I think it has to be someone close enough inside the immediate family for it to hurt.
I don't think anyone else in the immediate family has it in them.
In the USA, I think anyone with 1/2 (and sometimes 1/4) black heritage can be Black, and there are also lots of rules around when and how you can say Black, as opposed to person of colour or African American or similar, and it's not something I'd be confident of always getting right.
Leaves William then?
Yes, I have little idea how it feels and what it's like to walk in the shoes of someone of a different race - I suspect you are looked at and treated differently, and that's often annoying and sometimes unpleasant. My wife regularly gets asked "where are you from?" because she has a bit of an accent. I am treated automatically as a bit "posh" - which is usually, but not always, a benefit - and very rarely get looked at or treated differently.
That still doesn't mean I take Meghan at her word on everything she says, particularly when she says she was victimised by everyone and there are other competing (and often more credible) sources that say something quite different.
For me, this is evidence of us being less comfortable with a black bride for Harry than we are with a black striker for England.
I could be overthinking it but I don't think I am. And I offer the thought as being potentially very fascinating. People can disagree but it should not be just written off unthinkingly as me being "woke". That would be disappointing and unworthy of a board such as this.
Oh.
Too confusing. Shouldn't we call her MW anyway (Meghan Windsor)?
I should do something improving later in the afternoon to atone, I think, and to stop feeling dirtied - perhaps manual labour.
If this publicity helps to make such pronouncements beyond the pale then I suppose that is a plus.
That says quite a lot about the types of people who post on here, quite frankly, and not much more - we're also weirdly interested in things like betting, voting reform, quantitative analysis and computer games.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1368923646983606279?s=20
My argument is that he made the horrible monkey joke because he literally did not grasp that MM has a black father. Because she really does not look black, as we’ve established today
Does anyone else find it depressing that we’ve gone back to obsessing about race? As in, who is *really* black. How many drops of blood make you Black. Soon we’ll be talking about octoroons. It does not feel like progress. Quite the opposite
You're the minority on here and the country.
https://twitter.com/AnguspfRobinso1/status/1368908675939774469?s=20
@kinabalu can tell us who is "proper black" and so we will be able to avoid such confusion in future.
Two wall charts this morning - one from @HYUFD on people who are proper Tories and one from @kinabalu on people who are "proper black".
My Yorkshire accent is not necessarily overpowering.
https://twitter.com/UKCovid19Stats/status/1368892765833199619
If the media called her anything else you’d be jumping on them for that. Give up
Lived experience is a bit wokey and designed to avoid any challenge, rather than the benefit of the doubt.
It's a bit like the shibboleth that's "it's not the job of people of colour" to educate you on racism - read my book, and accept what I say, instead.
I wrote a thread header on this last year. I ignored it and spoke to a lot of black colleagues of mine instead, and learnt a lot through doing so, which was far more nuanced. And we even debated one or two points.
None of them objected and all were pleased I asked.
If one such person and I were walking down the street and there was a clown in the window of a house, one of us would be scared and the other would be untroubled.
Their lived experience would be of fear, mine not.
Does that help?
Will somebody please pick Oprah's jaw back up off the floor?
NEW THREAD