Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Boris numbers in these comparisons with Rishi and Keir should be worrying for the Tories – polit

1234579

Comments

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    Pulpstar said:

    People interested in seeing house prices rise by only tweaking around the edges, I am shocked they would be so interested in not seeing their own house prices fall!

    Why would anyone with a mortgage want their own house price to fall?

    I certainly don't want my own house price to fall. I'd be f*cked.
    Ultimately unless house prices fall the problem will just roll on. If you've already got a home, I find it hard to feel sympathy for many
    This isn't correct. Below inflation rises achieve the same equitable end - at a slower pace - but without buggering up existing homeowners.
    It won't happen whilst the Tories are around.

    So ultimately it's going to crash through the floor when the bubble pops.

    Fair point, though
    The biggest losers of the "bubble" popping would be Millennials like myself who have only just managed to get onto the housing ladder and therefore have low equity – Labour voters (generally)...
  • Pulpstar said:

    People interested in seeing house prices rise by only tweaking around the edges, I am shocked they would be so interested in not seeing their own house prices fall!

    Why would anyone with a mortgage want their own house price to fall?

    I certainly don't want my own house price to fall. I'd be f*cked.
    Ultimately unless house prices fall the problem will just roll on. If you've already got a home, I find it hard to feel sympathy for many
    This isn't correct. Below inflation rises achieve the same equitable end - at a slower pace - but without buggering up existing homeowners.
    It won't happen whilst the Tories are around.

    So ultimately it's going to crash through the floor when the bubble pops.

    Fair point, though
    The biggest losers of the "bubble" popping would be Millennials like myself who have only just managed to get onto the housing ladder and therefore have low equity – Labour voters (generally)...
    Your solution is better, I acknowledged it and would be happy to do so again.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Something happened to society in the Blair-Cameron years, but I don't know what. We do seem to still be fighting over it, though. And until we work out what, we can't collectively move on.

    Gordon Brown happened.

    That's not an entirely facetious response. Much of our current economic and social structure is the result of his legacy and policies that were carried on by the coalition.
    But it’s global. Look at America.

    It is lower IQs, in part. They really are dumber. Plus social media
    That might be the underlying mechanism (though I'm not convinced), but what's the presenting issue? What's the thing-about-society that causes mutual resentment and incomprehension between (roughly) those aged 30-minus and those aged 50-plus?

    (The most compelling mechanism I've heard is about education, but not higher ed. Until the late 80's you could leave school before finishing Fifth Year (Year 11 to our wannabe American readers), without any qualifications. And a certain proportion of people did. That's a key difference between those under 50 and over 50 now.)
    Partly it's because in developed nations younger people (rightly) feel the wealth ladder has been pulled up by the older generations who require more tax from working age people, they charge working age people rent and because they are so numerous they vote for more taxes on younger people to pay themselves larger pension incomes.
    That's some of it, but why does it spill though to everything else, like attitudes to Harry and Meghan? Or you-know-what (where paradoxically, it's the older, more likely to be retired and comfortable types who predominantly voted for radical change)?
    I think that's tradition vs modernity. Brexit definitely represents a more traditional view of how the UK should be and of course Harry and Meghan are currently cast in the anti-traditonal role within this country's most traditional organisation. Oddly in absolute terms Harry and Meghan are fairly traditional, a marriage, a kid, another kid on the way, if they weren't royals the family politics is fairly familiar to Indians and Jews - youngest child is irresponsible, marries an outsider (race or class), outsider doesn't get on with family values/hassle, decides they want out and youngest child chooses wife over family. It's not a new story anyway, Bollywood has been writing it for absolutely ages and there have been loads of memes about it.

    But yes, I'd cast the split in society in two ways, by wealth and attachment to traditional values.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    IF you really want to get on the vac list, then call your GP and tell the receptionist/nurse there is an error in you records.

    "No, I am NOT 6'1" as listed, but rather 5'1". Thank you very much for correcting that."

    My wife had a patient with a BMI of over 80!!! It turned out she was a double amputee.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    TimT said:

    TimT said:

    Morality question. Montgomery County, MD has obesity as one of the factors that bump you up the waiting list for vaccinations. They define obese as a BMI of over 32. Mine is 32.5, but I am not obese by other definitions (body fat percentage, commonsense). Should I feel bad about pre-registering for the vaccine on the basis of obesity?

    They've drawn the line there for a reason.

    I know someone my ages (thirties) whom I would not call obese by body fat percentage or commonsense but he would be by BMI, he's well over 6 foot. He got hit for six by the virus, ended up in ICU and on a ventillator for a couple of weeks and was very fortunate to survive.

    If you're eligible to get it then I would register and I would not feel guilty about doing so.

    I wonder whether its only 'fatties' who get sick or if tall, high BMI but healthy bodyline people are worse hit too. My friend was very nearly a statistic, so if the doctors have advised you're eligible don't count yourself safe.
    BMI ceases to work well for tall people. I am 6' 2", big set and fairly muscular. Even when my body fat was below 15%*, I had an idiot doctor look at my BMI and tell me I needed to lose weight.

    * Sadly, no longer true.
    Precisely my point. My friend is the same, I would not for a second say he was obese but he definitely would be by BMI. Tall, big set and fairly muscular too. At least pre-virus he was riding cross country bike rides most weekends but he was badly, badly affected by the virus.

    I don't know if there's any evidence as to whether tall high BMI but healthy people are more or less risk but anecdotally my friend is lucky to be alive so if you're eligible I would get it and I would not feel guilty for a second about it.
    It has always puzzled me that BMI is inversely proportional to the square of the individual's height when physics tells us that the volume, and thus the mass, of an object is proportional to the cube of its linear dimensions.
    It’s a really crude assessment of an individual that was devised for population study. I’d argue it’s use as the sole determinant of obesity ( or indeed being overweight) is not good science/medicine but it has the simplicity factor which makes it attractive to time pressured medical staff. It clearly fails at the edges, so rugby players with minimal fat, but high muscle content are labelled obese. It tells you little about someone’s cardiovascular condition. There are other measures that are coming into favour, such as waste measurements and waste to height ratio, and they may be a better guide. What I would say though is that unless you are at the edges then a bmi over 30 is probably a sign that you are carrying too much weight. (Like me...)
    It would be interesting to see what effect a BMI based on weight/height^3 (rather than ^2) would have though. Short people would tend to have higher BMIs than currently, and tall people would have lower BMIs.

    Logically though, if should give more accurate results.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,243
    Here in Seattle it's now 1pm on a heart-breakingly beautiful late winter day, with the sun shining and temperature in the mid-50sF.

    So am going AWOL from PB to seize the day; it's the law in these parts, to get out & about on a day like this.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited March 2021

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I think I'm going to watch Thor instead. Started going through the MCU movies on Disney+ like a boxed set.

    A much more entertaining use of two hours.

    Goodnight everyone.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    isam said:

    Similar polling to the thread header, from Redfield and Wilton (1 March)


    So, this poll has 43 % think Boris is strong leader.

    And the one in the header has 33 % think Boris is strong leader.

    Conclusion: There is a lack of precision in the polling.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    Actress surely? :lol:
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited March 2021
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Something happened to society in the Blair-Cameron years, but I don't know what. We do seem to still be fighting over it, though. And until we work out what, we can't collectively move on.

    Gordon Brown happened.

    That's not an entirely facetious response. Much of our current economic and social structure is the result of his legacy and policies that were carried on by the coalition.
    But it’s global. Look at America.

    It is lower IQs, in part. They really are dumber. Plus social media
    That might be the underlying mechanism (though I'm not convinced), but what's the presenting issue? What's the thing-about-society that causes mutual resentment and incomprehension between (roughly) those aged 30-minus and those aged 50-plus?

    (The most compelling mechanism I've heard is about education, but not higher ed. Until the late 80's you could leave school before finishing Fifth Year (Year 11 to our wannabe American readers), without any qualifications. And a certain proportion of people did. That's a key difference between those under 50 and over 50 now.)
    Partly it's because in developed nations younger people (rightly) feel the wealth ladder has been pulled up by the older generations who require more tax from working age people, they charge working age people rent and because they are so numerous they vote for more taxes on younger people to pay themselves larger pension incomes.
    That's some of it, but why does it spill though to everything else, like attitudes to Harry and Meghan? Or you-know-what (where paradoxically, it's the older, more likely to be retired and comfortable types who predominantly voted for radical change)?
    I think that's tradition vs modernity. Brexit definitely represents a more traditional view of how the UK should be and of course Harry and Meghan are currently cast in the anti-traditonal role within this country's most traditional organisation. Oddly in absolute terms Harry and Meghan are fairly traditional, a marriage, a kid, another kid on the way, if they weren't royals the family politics is fairly familiar to Indians and Jews - youngest child is irresponsible, marries an outsider (race or class), outsider doesn't get on with family values/hassle, decides they want out and youngest child chooses wife over family. It's not a new story anyway, Bollywood has been writing it for absolutely ages and there have been loads of memes about it.

    But yes, I'd cast the split in society in two ways, by wealth and attachment to traditional values.
    Some Brexiters were richer and older, and plenty were younger and poorer. There's an issue of cultural tribalism and extreme cultural polarisation going on that goes beyond generations or wealth, I would say.

    Similar gulfs are observable in the US, with some of the actors at the January 6 riot and attempted insurrection having arrived by private jet, and others being what other Americans would refer to as hillbillies.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited March 2021
    Andy_JS said:
    Safe to say it’s unlikely a prince or princess will be marrying an American any time soon. The exact same story, twice.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    TimT said:

    TimT said:

    Morality question. Montgomery County, MD has obesity as one of the factors that bump you up the waiting list for vaccinations. They define obese as a BMI of over 32. Mine is 32.5, but I am not obese by other definitions (body fat percentage, commonsense). Should I feel bad about pre-registering for the vaccine on the basis of obesity?

    They've drawn the line there for a reason.

    I know someone my ages (thirties) whom I would not call obese by body fat percentage or commonsense but he would be by BMI, he's well over 6 foot. He got hit for six by the virus, ended up in ICU and on a ventillator for a couple of weeks and was very fortunate to survive.

    If you're eligible to get it then I would register and I would not feel guilty about doing so.

    I wonder whether its only 'fatties' who get sick or if tall, high BMI but healthy bodyline people are worse hit too. My friend was very nearly a statistic, so if the doctors have advised you're eligible don't count yourself safe.
    BMI ceases to work well for tall people. I am 6' 2", big set and fairly muscular. Even when my body fat was below 15%*, I had an idiot doctor look at my BMI and tell me I needed to lose weight.

    * Sadly, no longer true.
    Precisely my point. My friend is the same, I would not for a second say he was obese but he definitely would be by BMI. Tall, big set and fairly muscular too. At least pre-virus he was riding cross country bike rides most weekends but he was badly, badly affected by the virus.

    I don't know if there's any evidence as to whether tall high BMI but healthy people are more or less risk but anecdotally my friend is lucky to be alive so if you're eligible I would get it and I would not feel guilty for a second about it.
    It has always puzzled me that BMI is inversely proportional to the square of the individual's height when physics tells us that the volume, and thus the mass, of an object is proportional to the cube of its linear dimensions.
    It’s a really crude assessment of an individual that was devised for population study. I’d argue it’s use as the sole determinant of obesity ( or indeed being overweight) is not good science/medicine but it has the simplicity factor which makes it attractive to time pressured medical staff. It clearly fails at the edges, so rugby players with minimal fat, but high muscle content are labelled obese. It tells you little about someone’s cardiovascular condition. There are other measures that are coming into favour, such as waste measurements and waste to height ratio, and they may be a better guide. What I would say though is that unless you are at the edges then a bmi over 30 is probably a sign that you are carrying too much weight. (Like me...)
    It would be interesting to see what effect a BMI based on weight/height^3 (rather than ^2) would have though. Short people would tend to have higher BMIs than currently, and tall people would have lower BMIs.

    Logically though, if should give more accurate results.
    Also the original population study was done by a mathematician for the Belgian population in the 1890s. Nothing might have happened since then to impact average heights and healthy weights, of course.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited March 2021

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    The early part of the interview, all this narrative of I never googled Harry, I am just a poor California girl who didn't know anything about the royal family, i didn't know how to curtsy or the national anthem, the mean cold family staff didn't help me....straight out of central casting for a Disney movie.

    I didn't believe a word of it. Especially as I have heard Mike Tindall talk about being a pleb marrying in and it isn't like that at all, he got lots of clear direction from the institution, and while yes there is formalities, there is also a lot more informal interactions than you would imagine with the likes of the Queen.

    Now the serious stuff that's a different matter.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    Rescued chickens?

    The vegetarian in me is... aroused :lol:
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    Actress surely? :lol:
    Whoopi Goldberg thinks that actress is sexist because it implies you can only play women, rather than any character.

    So she prefers actor.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    Andy_JS said:
    Is Mr Neil aware of the George Floyd cop trial about to get under way in the coming days?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Andy_JS said:
    Seems like a rather hyperbolic reaction. Why would the UK's reputation take a significant hit because the royal family has infighting? What nation is going to treat the UK differently because there is negative press involving people connected with the Head of State?

    It's like when people cry about Boris bring mocked abroad. Yes, that's embarrasing for those of us who don't like him, I imagine some americans felt even worse about how people mocked Trump for what it said about america, but such things are never as big of a deal in practical terms as we think.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,153
    Good to see BBC maintaining value for the licence fee by providing a live commentary on an ITV programme:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56271580
  • BournvilleBournville Posts: 303

    MattW said:

    Just had a reply from my Red Wall Tory MP to my suggestion that 1% was not enough, and that it should be plus one two weeks extra paid leave plus £1k or £2k one off tax free. It's loooooong and reads rather like a centrally drafted reply. Very much pat on the head

    A couple of decent points - one that the Indy Body will make a recommendation.

    I had a better reply last time. I think they will back down on this.

    --------------------------
    Good Afternoon,

    Thank you for getting in touch about nurses pay.

    It is important to note MP’s do not set nurses pay. This is down to an Independent Pay Review Body to decide what the pay increase should be. The 1% quoted in the media is just the opening suggestion to the pay review body. The nurse’s unions will provide their own suggestion and it is then ultimately down to the Independent body to decide what the increase should be. This 1% figure is not the final decision and it part of an ongoing negotiation. It’s also worth noting that the nature of NHS pay scales means that many nursing staff will receive additional annual incremental pay rises regardless of the outcome of this pay review.

    However, I appreciate your concerns and completely understand the strength of feeling on this issue. The NHS has shown why it is revered around the world over the past year and those that work in the NHS have the gratitude of us all, as do other front-line workers.

    We have all seen the devastating impacts the last year has had on the country. In the budget, the Chancellor underlined the severe impacts Coronavirus has had on the economy. Whilst in times of dire economic need savings must be made, the government has ensured those in the NHS would receive a pay rise this year, unlike the rest of the public sector. The government values the hard work of nurses throughout this pandemic which is why it has ensured that this increase will happen.

    Whilst we all agree that nurses deserve to be rewarded for the courageous acts they have committed over the last year, the government must look at this in the context of the wider public finances.

    Most public sector staff, including others who have been working throughout COVID such as the Police and teaching staff, will see their pay frozen. Any pay increase has to be paid for, so whilst pay could theoretically rise by more, nurses (and everyone else) could actually end up being financially worse off if we had to raise income tax or national insurance in order to pay for it.

    ...

    Good God what is the Tory party coming to?

    Three apostrophe errors in the first two sentences, the third sentence is a syntactic disaster, the fifth sentence has yet another misplaced apostrophe...
    This looks like a Policy Research Unit standard to me (PRU is an organisation within Parliament that produces standard letters on Government policy, so Conservative MPs can respond to inquiries without being terrified they're accidentally contradicting the Government). PRU has been in steady decline for a while now in terms of quality, and the decline has accelerated over the course of the pandemic. IMO this has a lot to do with their hiring practices, they tend to mostly employ fresh university graduates and turnover is pretty high.

    Of course in an ideal world MPs would respond to all correspondence personally, but when offices receive a high volume of correspondence about an emotive issue where there's significant risk of a Government u-turn, you're almost certainly going to receive a generic, non-commital, as-close-to-the-Government-line response as the office can possibly give.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:
    Safe to say it’s unlikely a prince or princess will be marrying an American any time soon. The exact same story, twice.
    The positive US press won’t last. She’s too closely aligned to the Democrats, so the Republican media will have a pop eventually.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    Actress surely? :lol:
    Whoopi Goldberg thinks that actress is sexist because it implies you can only play women, rather than any character.

    So she prefers actor.
    The Oscars beg to differ!
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    Actress surely? :lol:
    Whoopi Goldberg thinks that actress is sexist because it implies you can only play women, rather than any character.

    So she prefers actor.
    See this is the problem.

    "Actress" isn't sexist. That's ridiculous.

    However I personally don't see the need to gender the word "actor". I also don't care if people use the word "actress".
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    Actress surely? :lol:
    Ha. I’m just getting used to calling them all actors...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026
    Andy_JS said:
    I'm not so sure.

    The Aussies aren't bullshit merchants, for example.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Just called 119 again. Apparently my GP surgery should have allocated my NHS number to Group 6 to allow me to book online but if it's not working it means they haven't.

    I'm absolutely furious because I was told by my GP in early February that it was all set up. They are total waste of spaces.

    I'm going to have to keep it together when I call them tomorrow...

    Hmm looks like my suspicion of GP surgery incompetence wasn't wrong :|
    Good luck GG. Your call of course but I suggest you’ll get a better outcome if you keep it calm and polite.
    I will be calm and polite, but its frustrating constantly being palmed off by receptionists who always treat you as an inconvenience.
    In my experience, even when you stay calm and polite if you dare to challenge them over any error they become shouty and abusive. I was told, after one receptionist swore at me for daring to ask why a repeat prescription had been sent to the wrong pharmacy twice, that it’s to invoke their ‘difficult patient policy’ which enables them to escalate.

    Can’t help but feel if it would be better just to point out the error, keeping it brief, and follow it up in writing if you want to.
    I've had some similar experiences with call centre staff as well as GP practices, though I've also been on the other side during my short stint with the Inland Revenue.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    Actress surely? :lol:
    Whoopi Goldberg thinks that actress is sexist because it implies you can only play women, rather than any character.

    So she prefers actor.
    See this is the problem.

    "Actress" isn't sexist. That's ridiculous.

    However I personally don't see the need to gender the word "actor". I also don't care if people use the word "actress".
    I agree with you.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026
    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Her version of that story doesn't really add up. She doesn't say what Kate was 'upset' about.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    Actress surely? :lol:
    Whoopi Goldberg thinks that actress is sexist because it implies you can only play women, rather than any character.

    So she prefers actor.
    See this is the problem.

    "Actress" isn't sexist. That's ridiculous.

    However I personally don't see the need to gender the word "actor". I also don't care if people use the word "actress".
    I agree with you.
    And I just get more confused. I struggle to see the difference between ‘coloured people’ and ‘people of colour’. I have no desire to upset anyone, so will use whatever I am supposed to, but I have never had the email to say that the former is now verboten and we should use the latter.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited March 2021

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Well other than the Queen, the rest of the family have totally shut them out. The bust up has clearly been enourmous, his own dad wouldn't take his calls nor will they speak to them about his grandfather condition in hospital.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    Actress surely? :lol:
    Whoopi Goldberg thinks that actress is sexist because it implies you can only play women, rather than any character.

    So she prefers actor.
    See this is the problem.

    "Actress" isn't sexist. That's ridiculous.

    However I personally don't see the need to gender the word "actor". I also don't care if people use the word "actress".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Actress
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    Actress surely? :lol:
    Ha. I’m just getting used to calling them all actors...
    I miss some of the cool sounding ones that have died out, like “aviatrix”. Why you want to be called a pilot if you could be called an aviatrix?
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    edited March 2021
    Deleted - duplicate.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Her version of that story doesn't really add up. She doesn't say what Kate was 'upset' about.
    Luckily for her it doesn't have to add up. I don't think Oprah is a renowned cross-examiner.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    Actress surely? :lol:
    Whoopi Goldberg thinks that actress is sexist because it implies you can only play women, rather than any character.

    So she prefers actor.
    See this is the problem.

    "Actress" isn't sexist. That's ridiculous.

    However I personally don't see the need to gender the word "actor". I also don't care if people use the word "actress".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Actress
    I'm not sure what your point is. I already clearly said that I have no problem with the word "actress" being used. In fact it is probably very appropriate in circumstances where separate awards are being awarded for male and female actors.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited March 2021

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Her version of that story doesn't really add up. She doesn't say what Kate was 'upset' about.
    Andrew Neil would have had a field day with the inconsistencies. The issue of title for Archie, the pre wedding wedding, didn't know much about Harry, all untrue.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Well other than the Queen, the rest of the family have totally shut them out. The bust up has clearly been enourmous, his own dad wouldn't take his calls nor will they speak to them about his grandfather condition in hospital.
    I can certainly see this helping matters along.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    For Foxy:

    Total cases in the seven days to 03/03

    Blaby -34.2%
    Charnwood -30.3%
    Harborough -18.8%
    Hinckley & Bosworth -41.9%
    Leicester -32.9%
    Melton -29.5%
    North West Leicestershire -28.5%
    Oadby & Wigston -37.0%
    Rutland -24.4%
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    edited March 2021

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    Actress surely? :lol:
    Whoopi Goldberg thinks that actress is sexist because it implies you can only play women, rather than any character.

    So she prefers actor.
    See this is the problem.

    "Actress" isn't sexist. That's ridiculous.

    However I personally don't see the need to gender the word "actor". I also don't care if people use the word "actress".
    I agree with you.
    And I just get more confused. I struggle to see the difference between ‘coloured people’ and ‘people of colour’. I have no desire to upset anyone, so will use whatever I am supposed to, but I have never had the email to say that the former is now verboten and we should use the latter.
    Of course "coloured" is an official racial designation in South Africa.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited March 2021

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Well other than the Queen, the rest of the family have totally shut them out. The bust up has clearly been enourmous, his own dad wouldn't take his calls nor will they speak to them about his grandfather condition in hospital.
    This is partly why it's not quite as damaging as it could be, in Britain at least, rather than in the US and other republican nations, where it plays to a long and deeply felt historical view. The Queen and Prince William are the most popular members, and they seem to have been largely untouched by events.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026
    Jesus. She's trailing lines in advance about the "colour of Archie's skin" .. pregnant pause.. for Oprah to react to, and Harry to pick up on develop later.

    This was planned.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Well other than the Queen, the rest of the family have totally shut them out. The bust up has clearly been enourmous, his own dad wouldn't take his calls nor will they speak to them about his grandfather condition in hospital.
    I'm not watching the interview because I quite frankly don't care however if it's true that Harry's dad wont talk to him about his grandfather's health, that's very sad.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    Actress surely? :lol:
    Whoopi Goldberg thinks that actress is sexist because it implies you can only play women, rather than any character.

    So she prefers actor.
    See this is the problem.

    "Actress" isn't sexist. That's ridiculous.

    However I personally don't see the need to gender the word "actor". I also don't care if people use the word "actress".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Actress
    I'm not sure what your point is. I already clearly said that I have no problem with the word "actress" being used. In fact it is probably very appropriate in circumstances where separate awards are being awarded for male and female actors.
    Well, just pointing out the Oscars have no problem either.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    Nothing wrong with the word actress.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    RobD said:

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Her version of that story doesn't really add up. She doesn't say what Kate was 'upset' about.
    Luckily for her it doesn't have to add up. I don't think Oprah is a renowned cross-examiner.
    Let’s get Jackie Baillie in to question her.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited March 2021
    RobD said:

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Well other than the Queen, the rest of the family have totally shut them out. The bust up has clearly been enourmous, his own dad wouldn't take his calls nor will they speak to them about his grandfather condition in hospital.
    I can certainly see this helping matters along.
    My take having seen it, is that the situation was already basically unrepairable. His own brother and father won't talk to him*. Only Liz is willing to entertain them to see Archie over zoom.

    * He does say he has spoken to his Dad more recently but describes their relationship as space.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    RobD said:

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Her version of that story doesn't really add up. She doesn't say what Kate was 'upset' about.
    Luckily for her it doesn't have to add up. I don't think Oprah is a renowned cross-examiner.
    Let’s get Jackie Baillie in to question her.
    Or @Cyclefree ...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Her version of that story doesn't really add up. She doesn't say what Kate was 'upset' about.
    Kate being an arsehole is a unique take, and one I've never seen any evidence for whatsoever.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    As I said earlier, given that baby Archie is three-quarters white (Meghan's dad is white after all), can it really be credible for Meghan to claim that anyone (Royal or otherwise) would be concerned how "black" his skin would be?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Jesus. She's trailing lines in advance about the "colour of Archie's skin" .. pregnant pause.. for Oprah to react to, and Harry to pick up on develop later.

    This was planned.

    Well believe every allegation or not of course it was all planned. Every part very carefully stage managed and trailed, that doesn't, in itself, speak to a lack of veracity of course

    I wouldn't have thought the planned content and presentational structure is in dispute is it?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960
    isam said:

    Similar polling to the thread header, from Redfield and Wilton (1 March)


    Starmer 2% ahead on "tells the truth".

    1% ahead on cares about people like me.

    21% behind on tackling the pandemic.

    21% behind on building a strong economy.

    LOL.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    isam said:

    Similar polling to the thread header, from Redfield and Wilton (1 March)


    Starmer 2% ahead on "tells the truth".

    1% ahead on cares about people like me.

    21% behind on tackling the pandemic.

    21% behind on building a strong economy.

    LOL.

    It is interesting that Starmer is ahead in "representing change" though. I wouldn't have expected that.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Well other than the Queen, the rest of the family have totally shut them out. The bust up has clearly been enourmous, his own dad wouldn't take his calls nor will they speak to them about his grandfather condition in hospital.
    This is partly why it's not quite as damaging as it could be, in Britain at least, rather in than the US and other republican nations, where it plays to a deep historical view. The Queen and Prince William are the most popular members, and they seem to have been largely untouched by the interview.
    Yes, exactly. It tickles those American republican foundational myths about throwing off the shackles of King George III, and freeing themselves of the yoke of those stiff, snobby and oppressive Brits.

    So, they'll dig it. Not sure it'll change anything though.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    As I said earlier, given that baby Archie is three-quarters white (Meghan's dad is white after all), can it really be credible for Meghan to claim that anyone (Royal or otherwise) would be concerned how "black" his skin would be?

    Some people are idiots, anything is possible. The most likely candidate for making a joke of that nature has already been ruled out though.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited March 2021

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Well other than the Queen, the rest of the family have totally shut them out. The bust up has clearly been enourmous, his own dad wouldn't take his calls nor will they speak to them about his grandfather condition in hospital.
    I'm not watching the interview because I quite frankly don't care however if it's true that Harry's dad wont talk to him about his grandfather's health, that's very sad.
    That was a big take away for me, very sad situation for Harry, all he has been through, especially with his brother and it has come to this. It is much bigger bust up than we don't really want to do the royal duty thing, it is proper your out....he claims they literally just cut his money off one day, no warning, they told them you don't get any security, your on your own.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026
    kle4 said:

    Jesus. She's trailing lines in advance about the "colour of Archie's skin" .. pregnant pause.. for Oprah to react to, and Harry to pick up on develop later.

    This was planned.

    Well believe every allegation or not of course it was all planned. Every part very carefully stage managed and trailed, that doesn't, in itself, speak to a lack of veracity of course

    I wouldn't have thought the planned content and presentational structure is in dispute is it?
    It speaks to a motive and not to sincerity.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    @CorrectHorseBattery @MaxPB

    Nothing's really been doing with UK housing since 2008. Here it is set against RPI inflation

    https://twitter.com/Pulpstar/status/1369038590089560070
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Pulpstar said:

    @CorrectHorseBattery @MaxPB

    Nothing's really been doing with UK housing since 2008. Here it is set against RPI inflation

    https://twitter.com/Pulpstar/status/1369038590089560070

    Regional variations might be interesting.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,243

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    Actress surely? :lol:
    Whoopi Goldberg thinks that actress is sexist because it implies you can only play women, rather than any character.

    So she prefers actor.
    See this is the problem.

    "Actress" isn't sexist. That's ridiculous.

    However I personally don't see the need to gender the word "actor". I also don't care if people use the word "actress".
    I agree with you.
    And I just get more confused. I struggle to see the difference between ‘coloured people’ and ‘people of colour’. I have no desire to upset anyone, so will use whatever I am supposed to, but I have never had the email to say that the former is now verboten and we should use the latter.
    Just heading out the door, but had to throw my US 2-cents in on this.

    "People of color" is (or at least until recently was) what you could call "in-speach" while "people of color" is "out-speach" as direct result of the Civil Rights revolution of 1950s thru 1970s in USA.

    My grandparents used "colored woman" to refer to their cleaning lady, as a polite alternative to calling her the N-word. This in line with the name of the oldest US civil rights group, the NAACP.

    BUT in the late 1960s, there was a major change,as activists discarded & disdained "colored people" in favor of Afro-American, African American and Black. The first one died out, as being too associated with the "afro"hair style; but the later two stuck.

    Interestingly, in US usage, people of color includes not just African Americans (whether descendants of US slaves or recent immigrants) but also Asian Americans, Native Americans, Latino Americans AND those of mixed race.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Pulpstar said:

    @CorrectHorseBattery @MaxPB

    Nothing's really been doing with UK housing since 2008. Here it is set against RPI inflation

    https://twitter.com/Pulpstar/status/1369038590089560070

    So the boom happened under Labour, and it has been more or less static since?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960
    Pulpstar said:

    @CorrectHorseBattery @MaxPB

    Nothing's really been doing with UK housing since 2008. Here it is set against RPI inflation

    https://twitter.com/Pulpstar/status/1369038590089560070

    You can see why people loved Blair, right there in one graph.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Well other than the Queen, the rest of the family have totally shut them out. The bust up has clearly been enourmous, his own dad wouldn't take his calls nor will they speak to them about his grandfather condition in hospital.
    This is partly why it's not quite as damaging as it could be, in Britain at least, rather in than the US and other republican nations, where it plays to a deep historical view. The Queen and Prince William are the most popular members, and they seem to have been largely untouched by the interview.
    Yes, exactly. It tickles those American republican foundational myths about throwing off the shackles of King George III, and freeing themselves of the yoke of those stiff, snobby and oppressive Brits.

    So, they'll dig it. Not sure it'll change anything though.
    I think stuff about formality, being restricted in what you want to say and do and so on, that plays very well in america and with some level of sympathy here (and as noted, and as someone who has watched many of them I can confirm this, it is a fundamental plot of so many Hallmark and Disney movies involving royalty).

    But to a lot of British people if you tell us that the royals are a bunch of old fashioned snobs who are emotionally stuck up and that there are a lot of rules on personal choices with much of it in the public eye, well, that kind of fits what we expect.

    Racism, thinking suicidal thoughts, that kind of thing, that stirs people up whereever they are, but the UK and USA audiences will obviously have very different symapthaties, by and large, to personal drama and the royal inner circles being weird.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    Pulpstar said:

    @CorrectHorseBattery @MaxPB

    Nothing's really been doing with UK housing since 2008. Here it is set against RPI inflation

    https://twitter.com/Pulpstar/status/1369038590089560070

    Regional variations might be interesting.
    Aye @Pulpstar if the data is available it would be interesting to see each region plotted on the same graph across the same time period.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    RobD said:

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Her version of that story doesn't really add up. She doesn't say what Kate was 'upset' about.
    Luckily for her it doesn't have to add up. I don't think Oprah is a renowned cross-examiner.
    She makes Andrew Marr look like the Spanish Inquisition.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:
    Seems like a rather hyperbolic reaction. Why would the UK's reputation take a significant hit because the royal family has infighting? What nation is going to treat the UK differently because there is negative press involving people connected with the Head of State?

    It's like when people cry about Boris bring mocked abroad. Yes, that's embarrasing for those of us who don't like him, I imagine some americans felt even worse about how people mocked Trump for what it said about america, but such things are never as big of a deal in practical terms as we think.
    It's all tomorrow's chip paper, but I think in the short term it is pretty harmful. They're actually stating that they moved from the UK to the USA because the UK is so racist. That isn't likely to be questioned by the average US viewer - their ideas about the UK are limited to say the least. We must be getting on for the least racist and most integrated of any Western nation, but a narcissistic airhead and the utter gimp she's married to are sitting there making us look like Missisipi without the gumbo.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772

    TimT said:

    TimT said:

    Morality question. Montgomery County, MD has obesity as one of the factors that bump you up the waiting list for vaccinations. They define obese as a BMI of over 32. Mine is 32.5, but I am not obese by other definitions (body fat percentage, commonsense). Should I feel bad about pre-registering for the vaccine on the basis of obesity?

    They've drawn the line there for a reason.

    I know someone my ages (thirties) whom I would not call obese by body fat percentage or commonsense but he would be by BMI, he's well over 6 foot. He got hit for six by the virus, ended up in ICU and on a ventillator for a couple of weeks and was very fortunate to survive.

    If you're eligible to get it then I would register and I would not feel guilty about doing so.

    I wonder whether its only 'fatties' who get sick or if tall, high BMI but healthy bodyline people are worse hit too. My friend was very nearly a statistic, so if the doctors have advised you're eligible don't count yourself safe.
    BMI ceases to work well for tall people. I am 6' 2", big set and fairly muscular. Even when my body fat was below 15%*, I had an idiot doctor look at my BMI and tell me I needed to lose weight.

    * Sadly, no longer true.
    Precisely my point. My friend is the same, I would not for a second say he was obese but he definitely would be by BMI. Tall, big set and fairly muscular too. At least pre-virus he was riding cross country bike rides most weekends but he was badly, badly affected by the virus.

    I don't know if there's any evidence as to whether tall high BMI but healthy people are more or less risk but anecdotally my friend is lucky to be alive so if you're eligible I would get it and I would not feel guilty for a second about it.
    It has always puzzled me that BMI is inversely proportional to the square of the individual's height when physics tells us that the volume, and thus the mass, of an object is proportional to the cube of its linear dimensions.
    It’s a really crude assessment of an individual that was devised for population study. I’d argue it’s use as the sole determinant of obesity ( or indeed being overweight) is not good science/medicine but it has the simplicity factor which makes it attractive to time pressured medical staff. It clearly fails at the edges, so rugby players with minimal fat, but high muscle content are labelled obese. It tells you little about someone’s cardiovascular condition. There are other measures that are coming into favour, such as waste measurements and waste to height ratio, and they may be a better guide. What I would say though is that unless you are at the edges then a bmi over 30 is probably a sign that you are carrying too much weight. (Like me...)
    It would be interesting to see what effect a BMI based on weight/height^3 (rather than ^2) would have though. Short people would tend to have higher BMIs than currently, and tall people would have lower BMIs.

    Logically though, if should give more accurate results.
    I like this idea. You would have to choose a height (and therefore a series of weights), that you think it's accurate for, so that you can rebase the BMI values. (Short of reanalysing a whole bunch of population data).

    The average height of a man in NW Europe at the end of the 19th century was about 167cm (call it 5/3 metres), so a BMI of 30 equated to a weight of 83.3kg. This then gives you a BMI-cubed value of (250/3)*(27/125) = 18 for the obese boundary.

    A six foot man with a BMI of 30 would weigh just over 100kg, but with a BMI-cubed of 18 would tip the scales at just over 110kg.

    So the move from squared to cubed would make a fair bit of difference to people with a height different to the late 19th century norm.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Pulpstar said:

    @CorrectHorseBattery @MaxPB

    Nothing's really been doing with UK housing since 2008. Here it is set against RPI inflation

    https://twitter.com/Pulpstar/status/1369038590089560070

    And in 2007 Base Rate was 5.75%

    The price is set by supply and demand and other factors NOT low interest rates.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    Actress surely? :lol:
    Whoopi Goldberg thinks that actress is sexist because it implies you can only play women, rather than any character.

    So she prefers actor.
    See this is the problem.

    "Actress" isn't sexist. That's ridiculous.

    However I personally don't see the need to gender the word "actor". I also don't care if people use the word "actress".
    I agree with you.
    And I just get more confused. I struggle to see the difference between ‘coloured people’ and ‘people of colour’. I have no desire to upset anyone, so will use whatever I am supposed to, but I have never had the email to say that the former is now verboten and we should use the latter.
    When I was young an entire country was plastered with notices along the lines of “no coloureds” or “coloureds only”, and you wonder why the term is now tainted?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    Jesus. She's trailing lines in advance about the "colour of Archie's skin" .. pregnant pause.. for Oprah to react to, and Harry to pick up on develop later.

    This was planned.

    Well believe every allegation or not of course it was all planned. Every part very carefully stage managed and trailed, that doesn't, in itself, speak to a lack of veracity of course

    I wouldn't have thought the planned content and presentational structure is in dispute is it?
    It speaks to a motive and not to sincerity.
    I don't say the manner of presentation is entirely irrelevant. Major claims with details held back, as if for future release, and the heavily stage managed approach with weeks of build up, when if claims are serious and this was felt the only way to go why not just do it direct in one go at a press conference or something (it'd be a massive story either way), that's something to factor in, to consider why in this way.

    I merely allow the possibility that people being conscious of how they present an emotion for best effect doesn't necessarily mean it is false, even if it may speak to motivation.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Well other than the Queen, the rest of the family have totally shut them out. The bust up has clearly been enourmous, his own dad wouldn't take his calls nor will they speak to them about his grandfather condition in hospital.
    I'm not watching the interview because I quite frankly don't care however if it's true that Harry's dad wont talk to him about his grandfather's health, that's very sad.
    That was a big take away for me, very sad situation for Harry, all he has been through, especially with his brother and it has come to this. It is much bigger bust up than we don't really want to do the royal duty thing, it is proper your out....he claims they literally just cut his money off one day, no warning, they told them you don't get any security, your on your own.
    Quite right. The security was government provided and it would have been scandalous for our taxes to continue to cover it. His lack of self awareness and understanding of who was paying for his lifestyle is breathtaking.

    And frankly that goes for the Duchy of Cornwall too. If you’re out, you’re out.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    RobD said:

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Her version of that story doesn't really add up. She doesn't say what Kate was 'upset' about.
    Luckily for her it doesn't have to add up. I don't think Oprah is a renowned cross-examiner.
    The Washington Post has got an article today calling Oprah the "greatest celebrity interviewer of all time".

    I like Oprah, but almost any randomly chosen British interviewer would be tougher. People like Parkinson, Russell Harty, and even Wogan would have been picking holes in their story.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Jesus. She's trailing lines in advance about the "colour of Archie's skin" .. pregnant pause.. for Oprah to react to, and Harry to pick up on develop later.

    This was planned.

    Well believe every allegation or not of course it was all planned. Every part very carefully stage managed and trailed, that doesn't, in itself, speak to a lack of veracity of course

    I wouldn't have thought the planned content and presentational structure is in dispute is it?
    It speaks to a motive and not to sincerity.
    I don't say the manner of presentation is entirely irrelevant. Major claims with details held back, as if for future release, and the heavily stage managed approach with weeks of build up, when if claims are serious and this was felt the only way to go why not just do it direct in one go at a press conference or something (it'd be a massive story either way), that's something to factor in, to consider why in this way.

    I merely allow the possibility that people being conscious of how they present an emotion for best effect doesn't necessarily mean it is false, even if it may speak to motivation.
    You're not watching this, are you?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    RobD said:

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Her version of that story doesn't really add up. She doesn't say what Kate was 'upset' about.
    Luckily for her it doesn't have to add up. I don't think Oprah is a renowned cross-examiner.
    Let’s get Jackie Baillie in to question her.
    That would be a hilarious viral video of Jackie Baillie's questions followed by Meghan's answers.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,243

    As I said earlier, given that baby Archie is three-quarters white (Meghan's dad is white after all), can it really be credible for Meghan to claim that anyone (Royal or otherwise) would be concerned how "black" his skin would be?

    Personally think it extremely credible, given the potential range of skin color for a child of mixed racial heritage, even when one parent is themselves of mixed-race.

    Plenty of real-world examples, and even more in popular imagination.

    If you doubt this, check out the investigative journalism of Marty Povich, which is a stable of US tabloid TV:
    www.martyshow.com

    "That baby can't possibly be mine! Look how White it is!"
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Well other than the Queen, the rest of the family have totally shut them out. The bust up has clearly been enourmous, his own dad wouldn't take his calls nor will they speak to them about his grandfather condition in hospital.
    I'm not watching the interview because I quite frankly don't care however if it's true that Harry's dad wont talk to him about his grandfather's health, that's very sad.
    That was a big take away for me, very sad situation for Harry, all he has been through, especially with his brother and it has come to this. It is much bigger bust up than we don't really want to do the royal duty thing, it is proper your out....he claims they literally just cut his money off one day, no warning, they told them you don't get any security, your on your own.
    Quite right. The security was government provided and it would have been scandalous for our taxes to continue to cover it. His lack of self awareness and understanding of who was paying for his lifestyle is breathtaking.

    And frankly that goes for the Duchy of Cornwall too. If you’re out, you’re out.
    I mean that's quite hyperbolic. If ISIS or whoever kidnapped Harry and Meghan it would be a pretty significant national problem, despite what has gone on.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    Honi soit qui mal y pense
    Never more apt.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772

    Pulpstar said:

    @CorrectHorseBattery @MaxPB

    Nothing's really been doing with UK housing since 2008. Here it is set against RPI inflation

    https://twitter.com/Pulpstar/status/1369038590089560070

    You can see why people loved Blair, right there in one graph.
    You can also argue that it shows Cameron and Osborne were on track to lose badly in 2015 - until Osborne deployed Help to Buy (votes for Tories).
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Away from the Megan frothathon, serious trouble on the horizon:

    https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1369033112412381189

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026
    She's really bitter. Really. And weirdly resentful of William and Kate in particular - jealous even - you can see the anger in her eyes when it comes up. And she's very self-obsessed.

    Also she keeps making general accusations about "the institution", "a person" or "some senior people" in it without going into specifics or naming anyone, just insinuation.

    This is is bad as they say it is. Turned up to 11.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited March 2021

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:
    Seems like a rather hyperbolic reaction. Why would the UK's reputation take a significant hit because the royal family has infighting? What nation is going to treat the UK differently because there is negative press involving people connected with the Head of State?

    It's like when people cry about Boris bring mocked abroad. Yes, that's embarrasing for those of us who don't like him, I imagine some americans felt even worse about how people mocked Trump for what it said about america, but such things are never as big of a deal in practical terms as we think.
    It's all tomorrow's chip paper, but I think in the short term it is pretty harmful. They're actually stating that they moved from the UK to the USA because the UK is so racist. That isn't likely to be questioned by the average US viewer - their ideas about the UK are limited to say the least. We must be getting on for the least racist and most integrated of any Western nation, but a narcissistic airhead and the utter gimp she's married to are sitting there making us look like Missisipi without the gumbo.
    I wouldn't agree that it's a simple as that. We'e partly less racist, rather than less xenophobic, than many parts of Continental Europe, because of the influence of American and Canadian multiculturalism, which a number of British cultural conservatives are still uneasy with, as their counterparts on the American Right still are. The related mindset is influential in a tabloid press which is far from innocent in all this, and has again played a role in bullying a woman with her own issues.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Well other than the Queen, the rest of the family have totally shut them out. The bust up has clearly been enourmous, his own dad wouldn't take his calls nor will they speak to them about his grandfather condition in hospital.
    I'm not watching the interview because I quite frankly don't care however if it's true that Harry's dad wont talk to him about his grandfather's health, that's very sad.
    That was a big take away for me, very sad situation for Harry, all he has been through, especially with his brother and it has come to this. It is much bigger bust up than we don't really want to do the royal duty thing, it is proper your out....he claims they literally just cut his money off one day, no warning, they told them you don't get any security, your on your own.
    Quite right. The security was government provided and it would have been scandalous for our taxes to continue to cover it. His lack of self awareness and understanding of who was paying for his lifestyle is breathtaking.

    And frankly that goes for the Duchy of Cornwall too. If you’re out, you’re out.
    I mean that's quite hyperbolic. If ISIS or whoever kidnapped Harry and Meghan it would be a pretty significant national problem, despite what has gone on.
    If in the U.K. and at special risk, they deserve the same you or I would get, which would mean some police security. Having chosen to go overseas? Nah.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    As I said earlier, given that baby Archie is three-quarters white (Meghan's dad is white after all), can it really be credible for Meghan to claim that anyone (Royal or otherwise) would be concerned how "black" his skin would be?

    Personally think it extremely credible, given the potential range of skin color for a child of mixed racial heritage, even when one parent is themselves of mixed-race.

    Plenty of real-world examples, and even more in popular imagination.

    If you doubt this, check out the investigative journalism of Marty Povich, which is a stable of US tabloid TV:
    www.martyshow.com

    "That baby can't possibly be mine! Look how White it is!"
    Back in the real world, Archie doesn't have dark skin!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    glw said:

    RobD said:

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Her version of that story doesn't really add up. She doesn't say what Kate was 'upset' about.
    Luckily for her it doesn't have to add up. I don't think Oprah is a renowned cross-examiner.
    The Washington Post has got an article today calling Oprah the "greatest celebrity interviewer of all time".

    I like Oprah, but almost any randomly chosen British interviewer would be tougher. People like Parkinson, Russell Harty, and even Wogan would have been picking holes in their story.
    Oprah is virtually a cult in America to be honest.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:
    Seems like a rather hyperbolic reaction. Why would the UK's reputation take a significant hit because the royal family has infighting? What nation is going to treat the UK differently because there is negative press involving people connected with the Head of State?

    It's like when people cry about Boris bring mocked abroad. Yes, that's embarrasing for those of us who don't like him, I imagine some americans felt even worse about how people mocked Trump for what it said about america, but such things are never as big of a deal in practical terms as we think.
    It's all tomorrow's chip paper, but I think in the short term it is pretty harmful. They're actually stating that they moved from the UK to the USA because the UK is so racist. That isn't likely to be questioned by the average US viewer - their ideas about the UK are limited to say the least. We must be getting on for the least racist and most integrated of any Western nation, but a narcissistic airhead and the utter gimp she's married to are sitting there making us look like Missisipi without the gumbo.
    From the sounds of most of it it is very much pitched to US audiences, which makes sense - they are probably planning to make their future and family in the US as a permanent thing.
    IanB2 said:

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    Actress surely? :lol:
    Whoopi Goldberg thinks that actress is sexist because it implies you can only play women, rather than any character.

    So she prefers actor.
    See this is the problem.

    "Actress" isn't sexist. That's ridiculous.

    However I personally don't see the need to gender the word "actor". I also don't care if people use the word "actress".
    I agree with you.
    And I just get more confused. I struggle to see the difference between ‘coloured people’ and ‘people of colour’. I have no desire to upset anyone, so will use whatever I am supposed to, but I have never had the email to say that the former is now verboten and we should use the latter.
    When I was young an entire country was plastered with notices along the lines of “no coloureds” or “coloureds only”, and you wonder why the term is now tainted?
    That's true, but I think it is also pretty easy to see how someone might be confused by that particular example, as they are so similar. It'd be easier to non-malevolently stumble on that one than other examples (for instance, I think it is not very credible if someone were to claim use of paki as innocent error, since it is pretty improbable every time someone used it they genuinely believed they were using it as a non-offensive abbreviation for someone from pakistan or whatever).
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,243

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:
    Seems like a rather hyperbolic reaction. Why would the UK's reputation take a significant hit because the royal family has infighting? What nation is going to treat the UK differently because there is negative press involving people connected with the Head of State?

    It's like when people cry about Boris bring mocked abroad. Yes, that's embarrasing for those of us who don't like him, I imagine some americans felt even worse about how people mocked Trump for what it said about america, but such things are never as big of a deal in practical terms as we think.
    It's all tomorrow's chip paper, but I think in the short term it is pretty harmful. They're actually stating that they moved from the UK to the USA because the UK is so racist. That isn't likely to be questioned by the average US viewer - their ideas about the UK are limited to say the least. We must be getting on for the least racist and most integrated of any Western nation, but a narcissistic airhead and the utter gimp she's married to are sitting there making us look like Missisipi without the gumbo.
    Saying, or implying, that UK is more racist that US is actually quite shocking to most Americans.

    We KNOW that we are a very racist nation, it's too obvious to deny. But we a) do NOT know that much about UK, not most of us; and b) we tend to think that you are more civilized and less crude than (many if not most) of us.

    So these allegations are just as shocking for Americans as for Brits, but in a somewhat different way.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,153

    Away from the Megan frothathon, serious trouble on the horizon:

    https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1369033112412381189

    Rishi knows that inflation is coming which is why he has frozen the tax thresholds!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Well other than the Queen, the rest of the family have totally shut them out. The bust up has clearly been enourmous, his own dad wouldn't take his calls nor will they speak to them about his grandfather condition in hospital.
    I'm not watching the interview because I quite frankly don't care however if it's true that Harry's dad wont talk to him about his grandfather's health, that's very sad.
    That was a big take away for me, very sad situation for Harry, all he has been through, especially with his brother and it has come to this. It is much bigger bust up than we don't really want to do the royal duty thing, it is proper your out....he claims they literally just cut his money off one day, no warning, they told them you don't get any security, your on your own.
    I reckon lots of pb'ers are but not admitting it since the comment rate has dropped off a cliff since 9pm.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    IanB2 said:

    9pm soon. Is everyone turning over to ITV? Or are they arranging for a dripping tap to watch instead? :lol:

    I shall be watching a freshly painted wall dry.
    My wife is insisting we watch it.

    So far, Meghan is a consummate actor. Her answers seem clear, fluid, and also rehearsed and insecure.
    I think that’s my issue with this whole farrago - she is an actor, so I find it hard to believe she’s not playing a role here, in a way that perhaps Diana didn’t way back when.
    Actress surely? :lol:
    Whoopi Goldberg thinks that actress is sexist because it implies you can only play women, rather than any character.

    So she prefers actor.
    See this is the problem.

    "Actress" isn't sexist. That's ridiculous.

    However I personally don't see the need to gender the word "actor". I also don't care if people use the word "actress".
    I agree with you.
    And I just get more confused. I struggle to see the difference between ‘coloured people’ and ‘people of colour’. I have no desire to upset anyone, so will use whatever I am supposed to, but I have never had the email to say that the former is now verboten and we should use the latter.
    When I was young an entire country was plastered with notices along the lines of “no coloureds” or “coloureds only”, and you wonder why the term is now tainted?
    No, that’s not my point. I don’t follow things closely enough so I missed when the currently approved term became ‘people of colour’. I also suspect it will change again. I wonder if the use of language in this context is a bit like the evolution of business speak? Everyone uses it to fit in.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Jesus. She's trailing lines in advance about the "colour of Archie's skin" .. pregnant pause.. for Oprah to react to, and Harry to pick up on develop later.

    This was planned.

    Well believe every allegation or not of course it was all planned. Every part very carefully stage managed and trailed, that doesn't, in itself, speak to a lack of veracity of course

    I wouldn't have thought the planned content and presentational structure is in dispute is it?
    It speaks to a motive and not to sincerity.
    I don't say the manner of presentation is entirely irrelevant. Major claims with details held back, as if for future release, and the heavily stage managed approach with weeks of build up, when if claims are serious and this was felt the only way to go why not just do it direct in one go at a press conference or something (it'd be a massive story either way), that's something to factor in, to consider why in this way.

    I merely allow the possibility that people being conscious of how they present an emotion for best effect doesn't necessarily mean it is false, even if it may speak to motivation.
    You're not watching this, are you?
    No I'm not, it was a generic point not whether, in this example, the presentation is convincing. This began because of a comment about this being planned, when I just noted I don't think anyone thought any of it wasn't, did they?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,243

    As I said earlier, given that baby Archie is three-quarters white (Meghan's dad is white after all), can it really be credible for Meghan to claim that anyone (Royal or otherwise) would be concerned how "black" his skin would be?

    Personally think it extremely credible, given the potential range of skin color for a child of mixed racial heritage, even when one parent is themselves of mixed-race.

    Plenty of real-world examples, and even more in popular imagination.

    If you doubt this, check out the investigative journalism of Marty Povich, which is a stable of US tabloid TV:
    www.martyshow.com

    "That baby can't possibly be mine! Look how White it is!"
    Back in the real world, Archie doesn't have dark skin!
    But this was (allegedly) speculation BEFORE he was born.

    Can well imagine some of MY relatives, and not so long ago, opining about the color of a yet-to-be child, and perhaps NOT in a very nice way.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026

    glw said:

    RobD said:

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Her version of that story doesn't really add up. She doesn't say what Kate was 'upset' about.
    Luckily for her it doesn't have to add up. I don't think Oprah is a renowned cross-examiner.
    The Washington Post has got an article today calling Oprah the "greatest celebrity interviewer of all time".

    I like Oprah, but almost any randomly chosen British interviewer would be tougher. People like Parkinson, Russell Harty, and even Wogan would have been picking holes in their story.
    Oprah is virtually a cult in America to be honest.
    Oh, to have had Andrew Neil do this one.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    I think her fundamental problem is that *to be kind to her* she fundamentally misunderstands the monarchy.
    An HR department ? Really ?!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:
    Seems like a rather hyperbolic reaction. Why would the UK's reputation take a significant hit because the royal family has infighting? What nation is going to treat the UK differently because there is negative press involving people connected with the Head of State?

    It's like when people cry about Boris bring mocked abroad. Yes, that's embarrasing for those of us who don't like him, I imagine some americans felt even worse about how people mocked Trump for what it said about america, but such things are never as big of a deal in practical terms as we think.
    It's all tomorrow's chip paper, but I think in the short term it is pretty harmful. They're actually stating that they moved from the UK to the USA because the UK is so racist. That isn't likely to be questioned by the average US viewer - their ideas about the UK are limited to say the least. We must be getting on for the least racist and most integrated of any Western nation, but a narcissistic airhead and the utter gimp she's married to are sitting there making us look like Missisipi without the gumbo.
    Saying, or implying, that UK is more racist that US is actually quite shocking to most Americans.

    We KNOW that we are a very racist nation, it's too obvious to deny. But we a) do NOT know that much about UK, not most of us; and b) we tend to think that you are more civilized and less crude than (many if not most) of us.

    So these allegations are just as shocking for Americans as for Brits, but in a somewhat different way.
    I read they are beginning to choose the jury for the George Floyd cop trial.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    glw said:

    RobD said:

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Her version of that story doesn't really add up. She doesn't say what Kate was 'upset' about.
    Luckily for her it doesn't have to add up. I don't think Oprah is a renowned cross-examiner.
    The Washington Post has got an article today calling Oprah the "greatest celebrity interviewer of all time".

    I like Oprah, but almost any randomly chosen British interviewer would be tougher. People like Parkinson, Russell Harty, and even Wogan would have been picking holes in their story.
    Interesting to know on what basis they made the claim, even accepting that she is an institution in herself in the USA. I recall her interviewing Lance Armstrong, but I just kind of assume that most of her media work is in the field of entertainment, and so eliciting fluffy or dramatic stuff would be the general focus. I don't know if she often interviews in the journalistic sense.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960

    There's some serious claws out for Kate here.

    That's really weird. Really catty.

    Well other than the Queen, the rest of the family have totally shut them out. The bust up has clearly been enourmous, his own dad wouldn't take his calls nor will they speak to them about his grandfather condition in hospital.
    I'm not watching the interview because I quite frankly don't care however if it's true that Harry's dad wont talk to him about his grandfather's health, that's very sad.
    That was a big take away for me, very sad situation for Harry, all he has been through, especially with his brother and it has come to this. It is much bigger bust up than we don't really want to do the royal duty thing, it is proper your out....he claims they literally just cut his money off one day, no warning, they told them you don't get any security, your on your own.
    I reckon lots of pb'ers are but not admitting it since the comment rate has dropped off a cliff since 9pm.
    I've just seen a highlight reel. Least convincing thing ever. Markle has dropped even further in my estimation.
This discussion has been closed.