These people have got a screw loose. If the EU bans export of Pfizer vaccines to the UK the UK will in turn ban exports of the lipid layer product manufactured in Yorkshire that is absolutely critical to manufacturing of the vaccine.
Honestly, I think some of them need to have their heads examined by professionals.
They’re in some parallel universe. Again, I don’t understand
As has been noted elsewhere, it doesn’t even make political or public health sense (even if you ignore the hysterical lies). The EU’s vaccine performance isn’t that bad. They’re behind the UK and USA but they’re now speeding up. By tantruming like this they imply the vaccine drive is a disaster. If they were upbeat and positive they’d be giving much better signals to their voters, encouraging everyone to get the jab. Madness
They're contriving to turn Brexit into an existential issue for the EU.
Is this related to Brexit? Does it menace their brittle self-esteem that much? Quite peculiar
There are lots of elements to it: Cognitive dissonance because they had mentally written off the UK as if it were only as significant to the EU as losing Malta. Prickliness because their public diplomacy is conducted in English and there is always a UK voice to call them out. Self-doubt because any success the UK has undermines the arguments for integration being the best way forwards. Aggressiveness because they have internalised the idea that market power means you always get what you want.
I don't think the Scotch Whisky thing helped either.
2 months later ... on the road to being sorted for UK.
What is being sorted?
The Trump punitive tariffs. Which apparently (a) he did 15 years ago to no response from the EU, and (b) the EU definitely didn't get the same ban lift the day after the UK.
When you think about it, all of Trump's mad tariffs were the fault of the EU 15 years ago as well.
To be fair, I am being a touch polemical.
The issue was that EU and US both took each other to the WTO around 2005/6 for the other allegedly subsidising Airbus / Boeing.
Years later after appeals and dah-de-dah both cases were won a couple of years ago, and Mr Trump and EU imposed mutual tariffs, which have cost eg Scotch Whisky industry about £400m a year `cos Trumpy put a 25% retaliatory tariff on it.
Liz Wotsit the Trade Minister broke the log jam last week with a 4 month suspension for a negotiation, and the EU followed suit 3 days later.
I'm suggesting the EU should have done something to do this between 2006 and 2021, which the UK has done in 2 months since Brexit, and having a giggle that they suddenly caught up. I find it quite Laurel & Hardy.
Precisely. Its hilarious to think that after 16 years of this dispute, years after these tariffs, it was clearly Liz Truss who broke the logjam (with a unilateral action on New Year's Day) and the EU scampered after us a few days after we broke the logjam.
Now the likes of Rochdale are insisting that this is meaningless because of the fact that the EU led where we followed a few days later, so it would have been the same had we remained. That's silly. There's no evidence the EU were instrumental in getting the breakthrough as witnessed by the fact their breakthrough followed ours rather than the other way around.
Without us being first movers on New Year's Day its entirely probable the EU and USA would still be staring at each other arrogantly waiting for the other to be first to blink.
If we have the freedom to act, and the EU have the freedom to follow where we lead, then that's progress.
I didn't know that she had taken the initiative on December 9th. Reported here, complete with scepticism and kremlinology from Faisal Islam.
Have you noticed how Woke-ists always see the worst in people? If someone makes an ambiguous comment, for example, they always have to interpret it in the most negative way possible. They never give the benefit of the doubt. They are incredibly pessimistic about human nature. Wokeism is a totally regressive ideology.
It certainly takes a maximalist view of how widespread bigotry is. The good news is that there cannot possibly be more bigots in the world than the woke think there are. The bad news is that that's because they think everyone's a bigot...
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
What it probably was was some old duffer in the royal family who made a totally innocent remark about skin colour which had nothing to do with being racist.
We know nothing about what was said or the context. We know nothing about what was intended by it either.
It could have been an innocently curious ("I wonder if in looks it will take after you or Meghan?") it could have been a bad taste joke ("Ha! But will it be ginger with dark skin? Weird!") or it could have been malicious and pregnant with meaning ("If it's too dark then that's not good for the bloodline.")
We just don't know. And we don't even know if Harry heard what he think he heard either.
Yes, and it's particularly wrong to make the allegation at all without being specific about what exactly was said, when, by whom, and in what context. It just hangs there - it doesn't have to be proved, and it cannot be disproved. Where's the justice in that?
I've been able to disprove several of her claims in the last 48 hours through basic research, and that's on top of watching the interview itself which I thought rehearsed and insincere, except for the bit where she was talking about Kate where I saw real anger in her eyes.
So I've become more sceptical of what she claims as a result, not less, and I'm now extending that to her wider strategy here.
If I were to be particularly cynical I'd say she's at least partly weaponising the issues of race and mental health because she knows those are the two attack vectors most likely to get people on her side through her retelling of stories without requiring much in the way of direct evidence.
Have you noticed how Woke-ists always see the worst in people? If someone makes an ambiguous comment, for example, they always have to interpret it in the most negative way possible. They never give the benefit of the doubt. They are incredibly pessimistic about human nature. Wokeism is a totally regressive ideology.
These people have got a screw loose. If the EU bans export of Pfizer vaccines to the UK the UK will in turn ban exports of the lipid layer product manufactured in Yorkshire that is absolutely critical to manufacturing of the vaccine.
Honestly, I think some of them need to have their heads examined by professionals.
They’re in some parallel universe. Again, I don’t understand
As has been noted elsewhere, it doesn’t even make political or public health sense (even if you ignore the hysterical lies). The EU’s vaccine performance isn’t that bad. They’re behind the UK and USA but they’re now speeding up. By tantruming like this they imply the vaccine drive is a disaster. If they were upbeat and positive they’d be giving much better signals to their voters, encouraging everyone to get the jab. Madness
They're contriving to turn Brexit into an existential issue for the EU.
Is this related to Brexit? Does it menace their brittle self-esteem that much? Quite peculiar
There are lots of elements to it: Cognitive dissonance because they had mentally written off the UK as if it were only as significant to the EU as losing Malta. Prickliness because their public diplomacy is conducted in English and there is always a UK voice to call them out. Self-doubt because any success the UK has undermines the arguments for integration being the best way forwards. Aggressiveness because they have internalised the idea that market power means you always get what you want.
I don't think the Scotch Whisky thing helped either.
2 months later ... on the road to being sorted for UK.
What is being sorted?
The Trump punitive tariffs. Which apparently (a) he did 15 years ago to no response from the EU, and (b) the EU definitely didn't get the same ban lift the day after the UK.
When you think about it, all of Trump's mad tariffs were the fault of the EU 15 years ago as well.
To be fair, I am being a touch polemical.
The issue was that EU and US both took each other to the WTO around 2005/6 for the other allegedly subsidising Airbus / Boeing.
Years later after appeals and dah-de-dah both cases were won a couple of years ago, and Mr Trump and EU imposed mutual tariffs, which have cost eg Scotch Whisky industry about £400m a year `cos Trumpy put a 25% retaliatory tariff on it.
Liz Wotsit the Trade Minister broke the log jam last week with a 4 month suspension for a negotiation, and the EU followed suit 3 days later.
I'm suggesting the EU should have done something to do this between 2006 and 2021, which the UK has done in 2 months since Brexit, and having a giggle that they suddenly caught up. I find it quite Laurel & Hardy.
Precisely. Its hilarious to think that after 16 years of this dispute, years after these tariffs, it was clearly Liz Truss who broke the logjam (with a unilateral action on New Year's Day) and the EU scampered after us a few days after we broke the logjam.
Now the likes of Rochdale are insisting that this is meaningless because of the fact that the EU led where we followed a few days later, so it would have been the same had we remained. That's silly. There's no evidence the EU were instrumental in getting the breakthrough as witnessed by the fact their breakthrough followed ours rather than the other way around.
Without us being first movers on New Year's Day its entirely probable the EU and USA would still be staring at each other arrogantly waiting for the other to be first to blink.
If we have the freedom to act, and the EU have the freedom to follow where we lead, then that's progress.
I didn't know that she had taken the initiative on December 9th. Reported here, complete with scepticism from Faisal Islam.
This has been brilliantly handled by Truss, was skeptically reported by our press that can never see anything positive (especially but not just Faisal as a usual suspect) ... and then the EU came scampering after us to adopt the path we forged, only to have the likes of Rochdale claim this is nothing to do with Brexit or Truss because the EU led where we followed. 🤣
Have you noticed how Woke-ists always see the worst in people? If someone makes an ambiguous comment, for example, they always have to interpret it in the most negative way possible. They never give the benefit of the doubt. They are incredibly pessimistic about human nature. Wokeism is a totally regressive ideology.
On the latest EU news, I never thought I’d be yearning for the days of Junker and Tusk.
Tusk was certainly competent, and Juncker whilst occasionally provactive wasn't actually out to cause trouble.
I think Juncker was guilty of a serious error of judgement in his handling of 'negotiations' with Cameron.
The EU meant everything to Juncker. It was his life's work. Yet he put it in jeopardy because he failed to realise the anti-EU feeling in the UK was genuine and to some extent justified. I think he realised late on that his attitude had cost the project one of its most valuable members and might even have brough it down completely.
He cannot be happy with the way things have worked out, and if he has any insight at all he will realise that he bears much responsibilty for that.
Tusk was vastly superior.
Apart from the last sentence I agree with all of that.
Tusk got way too emotional over Brexit.
Yes, I agree Tusk got too emotional, but he was genuinely sad about the UK leaving and was doing his level best. Juncker just stood back as if it had nothing to do with him.
Prince Harry is more popular than the man who is supposed to be our next King. 🤦♂️
By 2%, Meghan is far more unpopular than Charles however.
William and the Queen are far more popular than Harry now.
Not just now, has long been the case. This shows quite a swing towards H&M from the figures you were glibly reporting over the weekend, but you never mentioned that, funny that!
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
I went for Andrew.
Who could possibly suspect poor, innocent Andrew?
I read on Popbitch years ago that Andrew liked telling shocking jokes for the LOLZ.
I could believe any of Prince Phillip, Prince Andrew or Princess Michael but it might not be any of those. And what was said and when might be quite different to what we think.
We just don't know. That's why this is an insinuation that will do ongoing political damage to the monarchy until it's revealed and resolved.
On the latest EU news, I never thought I’d be yearning for the days of Junker and Tusk.
Tusk was certainly competent, and Juncker whilst occasionally provactive wasn't actually out to cause trouble.
I think Juncker was guilty of a serious error of judgement in his handling of 'negotiations' with Cameron.
The EU meant everything to Juncker. It was his life's work. Yet he put it in jeopardy because he failed to realise the anti-EU feeling in the UK was genuine and to some extent justified. I think he realised late on that his attitude had cost the project one of its most valuable members and might even have brough it down completely.
He cannot be happy with the way things have worked out, and if he has any insight at all he will realise that he bears much responsibilty for that.
Tusk was vastly superior.
Apart from the last sentence I agree with all of that.
Tusk got way too emotional over Brexit.
Yes, I agree Tusk got too emotional, but he was genuinely sad about the UK leaving and was doing his level best. Juncker just stood back as if it had nothing to do with him.
Juncker should have resigned.
He was "elected" on a manifesto to keep the UK in the EU by settling the British question, and he totally failed.
On the latest EU news, I never thought I’d be yearning for the days of Junker and Tusk.
Tusk was certainly competent, and Juncker whilst occasionally provactive wasn't actually out to cause trouble.
I think Juncker was guilty of a serious error of judgement in his handling of 'negotiations' with Cameron.
The EU meant everything to Juncker. It was his life's work. Yet he put it in jeopardy because he failed to realise the anti-EU feeling in the UK was genuine and to some extent justified. I think he realised late on that his attitude had cost the project one of its most valuable members and might even have brough it down completely.
He cannot be happy with the way things have worked out, and if he has any insight at all he will realise that he bears much responsibilty for that.
Tusk was vastly superior.
Apart from the last sentence I agree with all of that.
Tusk got way too emotional over Brexit.
Yes, I agree Tusk got too emotional, but he was genuinely sad about the UK leaving and was doing his level best. Juncker just stood back as if it had nothing to do with him.
This year it would have been much better if von der Leyen had just stood back as if Britain was nothing to do with her.
Prince Harry is more popular than the man who is supposed to be our next King. 🤦♂️
By 2%, Meghan is far more unpopular than Charles however.
William and the Queen are far more popular than Harry now.
Not just now, has long been the case. This shows quite a swing towards H&M from the figures you were glibly reporting over the weekend, but you never mentioned that, funny that!
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
No, that has not long been the case.
In 2018 Meghan was on almost +40% with Yougov before her wedding and very popular, now she is in negative territory and unpopular.
By contrast Camilla is now on +1% so has overtaken Meghan in the affections of the British public
Having pondered the Harry and Megan saga for a couple of days, I think I’ve fitted a piece of the puzzle in its correct place.
It’s all very simple.
Harry and Meghan are pissed off because they’re constantly comparing themselves to Wills & Kate. That’s their fundamental problem.
Life is fking unfair for the spare.
If they stopped with the comparisons, they’d be happy. It’s all rather sad.
Take them back five or six centuries and it would be enough to start a war over. An interview with Oprah is a far more civilised way to go about things - if less likely to put Harry on the throne.
Have you noticed how Woke-ists always see the worst in people? If someone makes an ambiguous comment, for example, they always have to interpret it in the most negative way possible. They never give the benefit of the doubt. They are incredibly pessimistic about human nature. Wokeism is a totally regressive ideology.
Strawman argument from you.
Strawperson, if you're going to be Woke.
But I'm not woke.
You seem pretty woke to me mate, except when you talk about the French.
Not just now, has long been the case. This shows quite a swing towards H&M from the figures you were glibly reporting over the weekend, but you never mentioned that, funny that!
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
Perhaps the weeks of anti-Harry and anti-Meghan nonsense in The Sun, Mail and Express are wearing off.
H&M have faced the kind of vitriol usually observed for Labour Party leaders.
Have you noticed how Woke-ists always see the worst in people? If someone makes an ambiguous comment, for example, they always have to interpret it in the most negative way possible. They never give the benefit of the doubt. They are incredibly pessimistic about human nature. Wokeism is a totally regressive ideology.
You seem to be seeing the worst and pretty pessimistic about a handy chunk of people yourself.
On topic, I'm surprised just how anti science the GOP has become.
The reality of it is they keep on doing stuff that harms them, not using mail in votes which may have cost Trump the election.
Now there's not taking the vaccine, which might mean fewer GOP voters in future elections.
My view - and this also accounts for me for the election result - is that we saw a shift of moderate republican voters towards the democrats and at the same time this was balanced out, although not by enough to save Trump, by an influx of previous non-voters who voted for the Republican party.
This both accounts for the 'inexplicable' increase in those vote numbers for both Biden and Trump whilst at the same time making the GOP more anti-establishment in all its forms, from gun nuts to anti-vaxxers and all parts inbetween.
It means that it is now the GOP that has the real struggle with voting numbers. The political rift in the USA does not lie between the Democrats and republicans, it lies within the GOP itself. The democrats only need to not frighten the horses and, as long as the GOP is dominated by the anti-establishment extremists, they are a safe bet in future elections. The GOP has the far tougher job of trying to maintain the support of the extremists whilst trying to win back the moderates. I just don't think they are capable of doing that. All the more so if they lose more of their vote base to covid.
On the latest EU news, I never thought I’d be yearning for the days of Junker and Tusk.
Tusk was certainly competent, and Juncker whilst occasionally provactive wasn't actually out to cause trouble.
I think Juncker was guilty of a serious error of judgement in his handling of 'negotiations' with Cameron.
The EU meant everything to Juncker. It was his life's work. Yet he put it in jeopardy because he failed to realise the anti-EU feeling in the UK was genuine and to some extent justified. I think he realised late on that his attitude had cost the project one of its most valuable members and might even have brough it down completely.
He cannot be happy with the way things have worked out, and if he has any insight at all he will realise that he bears much responsibilty for that.
Tusk was vastly superior.
Apart from the last sentence I agree with all of that.
Tusk got way too emotional over Brexit.
Yes, I agree Tusk got too emotional, but he was genuinely sad about the UK leaving and was doing his level best. Juncker just stood back as if it had nothing to do with him.
Juncker should have resigned.
He was "elected" on a manifesto to keep the UK in the EU by settling the British question, and he totally failed.
On the contrary, he settled the British question once and for all.
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
I went for Andrew.
Who could possibly suspect poor, innocent Andrew?
I read on Popbitch years ago that Andrew liked telling shocking jokes for the LOLZ.
I could believe any of Prince Phillip, Prince Andrew or Princess Michael but it might not be any of those. And what was said and when might be quite different to what we think.
We just don't know. That's why this is an insinuation that will do ongoing political damage to the monarchy until it's revealed and resolved.
It's all about context. I suspect the context and tone upset the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
I will give you an example from my own lived experience.
When my youngest was born about two weeks later my friend Rob and his new girlfriend, who I had never met, paid me a visit.
Rob was holding and talking to my youngest at which point my youngest burped or farted, to which Rob said to my youngest
'Oh you cheeky monkey'
and his girlfriend said
'You can't say that, it's racist.'
To which point I said 'no it isn't, I've known Rob since university, we were housemates for two years after university, he doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body, there's honest to God racism in the world, this isn't one of them.'
A few years prior to that, I heard to old white ladies reading their papers and discussing the story about Harvey Price and his illnesses, and one of the women said something along of the lines of 'Well that's happens when you have different coloured parents, genetics causes illnesses like this' and her mate said 'yeah.'
So yes, skin colour of mixed race children can and is used by racists, if it upset the parents then I'm suspecting it wasn't an innocent comment.
For all those wondering what the AI thinks about this:
Is Meghan a liar? That depends on who you ask. When Americans meet Meghan, they assume she is British. And with her British accent and perfect grammar, it would be easy to believe her when she says "Yes" when asked if she's American. But Meghan isn't British; nor is she American. Her truth isn't an illusion; it's real...but it's not the truth we expect.
Not just now, has long been the case. This shows quite a swing towards H&M from the figures you were glibly reporting over the weekend, but you never mentioned that, funny that!
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
Perhaps the weeks of anti-Harry and anti-Meghan nonsense in The Sun, Mail and Express are wearing off.
H&M have faced the kind of vitriol usually observed for Labour Party leaders.
These people have got a screw loose. If the EU bans export of Pfizer vaccines to the UK the UK will in turn ban exports of the lipid layer product manufactured in Yorkshire that is absolutely critical to manufacturing of the vaccine.
Honestly, I think some of them need to have their heads examined by professionals.
They’re in some parallel universe. Again, I don’t understand
As has been noted elsewhere, it doesn’t even make political or public health sense (even if you ignore the hysterical lies). The EU’s vaccine performance isn’t that bad. They’re behind the UK and USA but they’re now speeding up. By tantruming like this they imply the vaccine drive is a disaster. If they were upbeat and positive they’d be giving much better signals to their voters, encouraging everyone to get the jab. Madness
They're contriving to turn Brexit into an existential issue for the EU.
Is this related to Brexit? Does it menace their brittle self-esteem that much? Quite peculiar
There are lots of elements to it: Cognitive dissonance because they had mentally written off the UK as if it were only as significant to the EU as losing Malta. Prickliness because their public diplomacy is conducted in English and there is always a UK voice to call them out. Self-doubt because any success the UK has undermines the arguments for integration being the best way forwards. Aggressiveness because they have internalised the idea that market power means you always get what you want.
I don't think the Scotch Whisky thing helped either.
2 months later ... on the road to being sorted for UK.
What is being sorted?
The Trump punitive tariffs. Which apparently (a) he did 15 years ago to no response from the EU, and (b) the EU definitely didn't get the same ban lift the day after the UK.
When you think about it, all of Trump's mad tariffs were the fault of the EU 15 years ago as well.
To be fair, I am being a touch polemical.
The issue was that EU and US both took each other to the WTO around 2005/6 for the other allegedly subsidising Airbus / Boeing.
Years later after appeals and dah-de-dah both cases were won a couple of years ago, and Mr Trump and EU imposed mutual tariffs, which have cost eg Scotch Whisky industry about £400m a year `cos Trumpy put a 25% retaliatory tariff on it.
Liz Wotsit the Trade Minister broke the log jam last week with a 4 month suspension for a negotiation, and the EU followed suit 3 days later.
I'm suggesting the EU should have done something to do this between 2006 and 2021, which the UK has done in 2 months since Brexit, and having a giggle that they suddenly caught up. I find it quite Laurel & Hardy.
Precisely. Its hilarious to think that after 16 years of this dispute, years after these tariffs, it was clearly Liz Truss who broke the logjam (with a unilateral action on New Year's Day) and the EU scampered after us a few days after we broke the logjam.
Now the likes of Rochdale are insisting that this is meaningless because of the fact that the EU led where we followed a few days later, so it would have been the same had we remained. That's silly. There's no evidence the EU were instrumental in getting the breakthrough as witnessed by the fact their breakthrough followed ours rather than the other way around.
Without us being first movers on New Year's Day its entirely probable the EU and USA would still be staring at each other arrogantly waiting for the other to be first to blink.
If we have the freedom to act, and the EU have the freedom to follow where we lead, then that's progress.
I didn't know that she had taken the initiative on December 9th. Reported here, complete with scepticism from Faisal Islam.
This has been brilliantly handled by Truss, was skeptically reported by our press that can never see anything positive (especially but not just Faisal as a usual suspect) ... and then the EU came scampering after us to adopt the path we forged, only to have the likes of Rochdale claim this is nothing to do with Brexit or Truss because the EU led where we followed. 🤣
Not going to disagree, except to say that it's great as well that the US is clearly - after after a period of complete disengagement with the world - happy to cut deals.
Sorry, I can't help. I'm watching the first series of True Detective again. I knew it was good, but damn, it is very fine indeed on rewatching.
I've just watched it for the first time, and it's superb, although Season 2 didn't come up to the same mark as seasons 1 & 3.
Another stunningly good drama that never seems to be mentioned here is The Leftovers.
When I saw the synopsis I thought that it wasn't my type of thing, but the acting, cinematography, storyline and directing and so damned good, and get better and better with each episode.
I remember not getting past a few episodes of the Leftovers, but it seems to have gotten a lot of praise toward the end so it may be worth another go.
Never watched it myself, but a lot of it was filmed here in Sleepy Hollow.
Have you noticed how Woke-ists always see the worst in people? If someone makes an ambiguous comment, for example, they always have to interpret it in the most negative way possible. They never give the benefit of the doubt. They are incredibly pessimistic about human nature. Wokeism is a totally regressive ideology.
Strawman argument from you.
Strawperson, if you're going to be Woke.
But I'm not woke.
You seem pretty woke to me mate, except when you talk about the French.
When did you last critique a woke take?
All the time, lumping all non white people into some homogeneous BAME group is a load of bollocks.
You might have seen me pretty cross when Corbyn said only Labour can unlock the potential of BAME people.
Apparently I have a lot in common with a black kid living on a council estate in London because we're BAME
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
I went for Andrew.
Who could possibly suspect poor, innocent Andrew?
I read on Popbitch years ago that Andrew liked telling shocking jokes for the LOLZ.
I could believe any of Prince Phillip, Prince Andrew or Princess Michael but it might not be any of those. And what was said and when might be quite different to what we think.
We just don't know. That's why this is an insinuation that will do ongoing political damage to the monarchy until it's revealed and resolved.
It's all about context. I suspect the context and tone upset the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
I will give you an example from my own lived experience.
When my youngest was born about two weeks later my friend Rob and his new girlfriend, who I had never met, paid me a visit.
Rob was holding and talking to my youngest at which point my youngest burped or farted, to which Rob said to my youngest
'Oh you cheeky monkey'
and his girlfriend said
'You can't say that, it's racist.'
To which point I said 'no it isn't, I've known Rob since university, we were housemates for two years after university, he doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body, there's honest to God racism in the world, this isn't one of them.'
A few years prior to that, I heard to old white ladies reading their papers and discussing the story about Harvey Price and his illnesses, and one of the women said something along of the lines of 'Well that's happens when you have different coloured parents, genetics causes illnesses like this' and her mate said 'yeah.'
So yes, skin colour of mixed race children can and is used by racists, if it upset the parents then I'm suspecting it wasn't an innocent comment.
I remember that Roy Hodgson was pilloried for telling a joke about a monkey in a Russian spacecraft in an England half time talk. I did feel a bit bad for him I’ll be honest.
Not just now, has long been the case. This shows quite a swing towards H&M from the figures you were glibly reporting over the weekend, but you never mentioned that, funny that!
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
Perhaps the weeks of anti-Harry and anti-Meghan nonsense in The Sun, Mail and Express are wearing off.
H&M have faced the kind of vitriol usually observed for Labour Party leaders.
The whole thing seems to shake down to the snide racism of these papers.
No doubt the Royal Family has its racist element too, as do most families, but they're managable and of little consequence. It's the tabloid press that H&M are gunning for.
Sorry, I can't help. I'm watching the first series of True Detective again. I knew it was good, but damn, it is very fine indeed on rewatching.
I've just watched it for the first time, and it's superb, although Season 2 didn't come up to the same mark as seasons 1 & 3.
Another stunningly good drama that never seems to be mentioned here is The Leftovers.
When I saw the synopsis I thought that it wasn't my type of thing, but the acting, cinematography, storyline and directing and so damned good, and get better and better with each episode.
I remember not getting past a few episodes of the Leftovers, but it seems to have gotten a lot of praise toward the end so it may be worth another go.
Never watched it myself, but a lot of it was filmed here in Sleepy Hollow.
That's actually a real place? I hope they at least filmed the show Sleepy Hollow there.
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
I went for Andrew.
Who could possibly suspect poor, innocent Andrew?
I read on Popbitch years ago that Andrew liked telling shocking jokes for the LOLZ.
I could believe any of Prince Phillip, Prince Andrew or Princess Michael but it might not be any of those. And what was said and when might be quite different to what we think.
We just don't know. That's why this is an insinuation that will do ongoing political damage to the monarchy until it's revealed and resolved.
It's all about context. I suspect the context and tone upset the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
I will give you an example from my own lived experience.
When my youngest was born about two weeks later my friend Rob and his new girlfriend, who I had never met, paid me a visit.
Rob was holding and talking to my youngest at which point my youngest burped or farted, to which Rob said to my youngest
'Oh you cheeky monkey'
and his girlfriend said
'You can't say that, it's racist.'
To which point I said 'no it isn't, I've known Rob since university, we were housemates for two years after university, he doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body, there's honest to God racism in the world, this isn't one of them.'
A few years prior to that, I heard to old white ladies reading their papers and discussing the story about Harvey Price and his illnesses, and one of the women said something along of the lines of 'Well that's happens when you have different coloured parents, genetics causes illnesses like this' and her mate said 'yeah.'
So yes, skin colour of mixed race children can and is used by racists, if it upset the parents then I'm suspecting it wasn't an innocent comment.
I remember that Roy Hodgson was pilloried for telling a joke about a monkey in a Russian spacecraft in an England half time talk. I did feel a bit bad for him I’ll be honest.
That was bizarre, the guy who he was saying was a space monkey didn't take any offence.
I think he said he worked with Hodgson for so long he knew that Hodgson couldn't be racist.
I can't be bothered giving the Spectator a click. Did Anil differentiate between wondering what skin colour your own child will have and speculating out loud what colour of skin other people's child might have?
So first the obvious declaration of interest: I was born in Mauritius. I look Asian. Or brown if you prefer. My wife was born in Slovenia. She is white and blonde.
Yes, it is an unusual match. Our respective families are the most open-minded groups of people you could ever meet, however. Never a hint of racism on either side. But have we discussed the skin colours of my kids, since long before they were born? You bet we have, and still do.
Before my son Joe popped out 11 years ago, my late mother enquired endlessly what the different colour options were. She went further than the mystery ‘racist’ royal, suggesting that a darker version of brown would be better, as the kid would be more likely to follow the Hindu religion (that of our side of the family).
My wife’s family — who could not have been more welcoming to the first brown face that ever entered their remote village in eastern Europe — were hoping for a ‘whiter’ result, thinking that made it more likely he would follow Christianity.
I joined in with all this. We had endless family discussions, usually over countless bottles of wine...
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
I went for Andrew.
Who could possibly suspect poor, innocent Andrew?
I read on Popbitch years ago that Andrew liked telling shocking jokes for the LOLZ.
I could believe any of Prince Phillip, Prince Andrew or Princess Michael but it might not be any of those. And what was said and when might be quite different to what we think.
We just don't know. That's why this is an insinuation that will do ongoing political damage to the monarchy until it's revealed and resolved.
It's all about context. I suspect the context and tone upset the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
I will give you an example from my own lived experience.
When my youngest was born about two weeks later my friend Rob and his new girlfriend, who I had never met, paid me a visit.
Rob was holding and talking to my youngest at which point my youngest burped or farted, to which Rob said to my youngest
'Oh you cheeky monkey'
and his girlfriend said
'You can't say that, it's racist.'
To which point I said 'no it isn't, I've known Rob since university, we were housemates for two years after university, he doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body, there's honest to God racism in the world, this isn't one of them.'
A few years prior to that, I heard to old white ladies reading their papers and discussing the story about Harvey Price and his illnesses, and one of the women said something along of the lines of 'Well that's happens when you have different coloured parents, genetics causes illnesses like this' and her mate said 'yeah.'
So yes, skin colour of mixed race children can and is used by racists, if it upset the parents then I'm suspecting it wasn't an innocent comment.
I remember that Roy Hodgson was pilloried for telling a joke about a monkey in a Russian spacecraft in an England half time talk. I did feel a bit bad for him I’ll be honest.
That was bizarre, the guy who he was saying was a space monkey didn't take any offence.
I think he said he worked with Hodgson for so long he knew that Hodgson couldn't be racist.
Can be a tricky area. Everyone will have made jokes or comments that are offensive to someone but the people they made them with will not have a problem, but which ones are sufficiently, inherently offensive, that others can demand action even if those to whom they were made were not offended?
Not just now, has long been the case. This shows quite a swing towards H&M from the figures you were glibly reporting over the weekend, but you never mentioned that, funny that!
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
Perhaps the weeks of anti-Harry and anti-Meghan nonsense in The Sun, Mail and Express are wearing off.
H&M have faced the kind of vitriol usually observed for Labour Party leaders.
The whole thing seems to shake down to the snide racism of these papers.
No doubt the Royal Family has its racist element too, as do most families, but they're managable and of little consequence. It's the tabloid press that H&M are gunning for.
If that is the case then they have been bloody stupid.
Last week they were winning cases against the Mail and rightly getting sympathy, at least in some quarters, for the way the Press have behaved. This week their idiotic interview and obvious petulance about not being treated exactly as they wanted by the Royal Family means that much of that sympathy will have evaporated. Going after the papers was winning them friends. Going after the Royal Family definitely does not.
Not just now, has long been the case. This shows quite a swing towards H&M from the figures you were glibly reporting over the weekend, but you never mentioned that, funny that!
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
Perhaps the weeks of anti-Harry and anti-Meghan nonsense in The Sun, Mail and Express are wearing off.
H&M have faced the kind of vitriol usually observed for Labour Party leaders.
The whole thing seems to shake down to the snide racism of these papers.
No doubt the Royal Family has its racist element too, as do most families, but they're managable and of little consequence. It's the tabloid press that H&M are gunning for.
If that is the case then they have been bloody stupid.
Last week they were winning cases against the Mail and rightly getting sympathy, at least in some quarters, for the way the Press have behaved. This week their idiotic interview and obvious petulance about not being treated exactly as they wanted by the Royal Family means that much of that sympathy will have evaporated. Going after the papers was winning them friends. Going after the Royal Family definitely does not.
Played better to the intended audience perhaps. That said, if their main target is the press, then airing family stuff is a distraction from that. However, that said again, if the mental health issue is the key then attacking the family is unavoidable because of the failed to help angle.
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
I went for Andrew.
Who could possibly suspect poor, innocent Andrew?
I read on Popbitch years ago that Andrew liked telling shocking jokes for the LOLZ.
I could believe any of Prince Phillip, Prince Andrew or Princess Michael but it might not be any of those. And what was said and when might be quite different to what we think.
We just don't know. That's why this is an insinuation that will do ongoing political damage to the monarchy until it's revealed and resolved.
It's all about context. I suspect the context and tone upset the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
I will give you an example from my own lived experience.
When my youngest was born about two weeks later my friend Rob and his new girlfriend, who I had never met, paid me a visit.
Rob was holding and talking to my youngest at which point my youngest burped or farted, to which Rob said to my youngest
'Oh you cheeky monkey'
and his girlfriend said
'You can't say that, it's racist.'
To which point I said 'no it isn't, I've known Rob since university, we were housemates for two years after university, he doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body, there's honest to God racism in the world, this isn't one of them.'
A few years prior to that, I heard to old white ladies reading their papers and discussing the story about Harvey Price and his illnesses, and one of the women said something along of the lines of 'Well that's happens when you have different coloured parents, genetics causes illnesses like this' and her mate said 'yeah.'
So yes, skin colour of mixed race children can and is used by racists, if it upset the parents then I'm suspecting it wasn't an innocent comment.
I remember that Roy Hodgson was pilloried for telling a joke about a monkey in a Russian spacecraft in an England half time talk. I did feel a bit bad for him I’ll be honest.
That was bizarre, the guy who he was saying was a space monkey didn't take any offence.
I think he said he worked with Hodgson for so long he knew that Hodgson couldn't be racist.
I’m reluctant to stray to far into this debate but professionally I always have to remind clients that people might not be “racists” but they can do racist things quite unthinkingly. I once helped carry a round back for a group of visiting rugby players and gave the only Irishman in that group the only Guinness. His was the Stella and he got quite offended. Hardly marks me out as a member of the KKK but it was a lazy stereotypical assumption that it is easy to see could take place in worse contexts,
Sorry, I can't help. I'm watching the first series of True Detective again. I knew it was good, but damn, it is very fine indeed on rewatching.
I've just watched it for the first time, and it's superb, although Season 2 didn't come up to the same mark as seasons 1 & 3.
Another stunningly good drama that never seems to be mentioned here is The Leftovers.
When I saw the synopsis I thought that it wasn't my type of thing, but the acting, cinematography, storyline and directing and so damned good, and get better and better with each episode.
I remember not getting past a few episodes of the Leftovers, but it seems to have gotten a lot of praise toward the end so it may be worth another go.
Never watched it myself, but a lot of it was filmed here in Sleepy Hollow.
That's actually a real place? I hope they at least filmed the show Sleepy Hollow there.
Yes, the village was named "North Tarrytown" until 1996, when it took the name Sleepy Hollow to try to boost the local economy after the major employer, General Motors, closed its plant here. But we are the actual setting of Washington Irving's story: the Old Dutch Church of the story is literally around the corner from our house, and the original "Sleepy Hollow" is the valley of the Pocantico river running up from the church, now mostly in the grounds of Sleepy Hollow Cemetery (the last resting place of Irving, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas J. Watson of IBM and sundry Rockefellers).
The Sleepy Hollow TV series was filmed in North Carolina, although the aerial shots in the opening sequence are of the real village.
If you should find yourself in the NYC area around Halloween we're well worth a visit. There are guided tours of the cemetery most evenings, a "haunted hollow" at Philipsburg Manor across Broadway from the Old Dutch Church, and recitals of the Legend of Sleepy Hollow at the church itself.
On the latest EU news, I never thought I’d be yearning for the days of Junker and Tusk.
Tusk was certainly competent, and Juncker whilst occasionally provactive wasn't actually out to cause trouble.
I think Juncker was guilty of a serious error of judgement in his handling of 'negotiations' with Cameron.
The EU meant everything to Juncker. It was his life's work. Yet he put it in jeopardy because he failed to realise the anti-EU feeling in the UK was genuine and to some extent justified. I think he realised late on that his attitude had cost the project one of its most valuable members and might even have brough it down completely.
He cannot be happy with the way things have worked out, and if he has any insight at all he will realise that he bears much responsibilty for that.
Tusk was vastly superior.
Apart from the last sentence I agree with all of that.
Tusk got way too emotional over Brexit.
Yes, I agree Tusk got too emotional, but he was genuinely sad about the UK leaving and was doing his level best. Juncker just stood back as if it had nothing to do with him.
Juncker should have resigned.
He was "elected" on a manifesto to keep the UK in the EU by settling the British question, and he totally failed.
On the contrary, he settled the British question once and for all.
You're assuming that both the UK and EU will be stable entities going forwards.
On the latest EU news, I never thought I’d be yearning for the days of Junker and Tusk.
Tusk was certainly competent, and Juncker whilst occasionally provactive wasn't actually out to cause trouble.
I think Juncker was guilty of a serious error of judgement in his handling of 'negotiations' with Cameron.
The EU meant everything to Juncker. It was his life's work. Yet he put it in jeopardy because he failed to realise the anti-EU feeling in the UK was genuine and to some extent justified. I think he realised late on that his attitude had cost the project one of its most valuable members and might even have brough it down completely.
He cannot be happy with the way things have worked out, and if he has any insight at all he will realise that he bears much responsibilty for that.
Tusk was vastly superior.
Apart from the last sentence I agree with all of that.
Tusk got way too emotional over Brexit.
Yes, I agree Tusk got too emotional, but he was genuinely sad about the UK leaving and was doing his level best. Juncker just stood back as if it had nothing to do with him.
This year it would have been much better if von der Leyen had just stood back as if Britain was nothing to do with her.
I think it is fair to say that the EU learned the exact wrong lesson from the UK in respect of, as they used to complain, finding someone else to blame problems on as a distraction.
The chances of either of us learning further positive lessons from one other is pretty slim.
Not just now, has long been the case. This shows quite a swing towards H&M from the figures you were glibly reporting over the weekend, but you never mentioned that, funny that!
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
Perhaps the weeks of anti-Harry and anti-Meghan nonsense in The Sun, Mail and Express are wearing off.
H&M have faced the kind of vitriol usually observed for Labour Party leaders.
The whole thing seems to shake down to the snide racism of these papers.
No doubt the Royal Family has its racist element too, as do most families, but they're managable and of little consequence. It's the tabloid press that H&M are gunning for.
If that is the case then they have been bloody stupid.
Last week they were winning cases against the Mail and rightly getting sympathy, at least in some quarters, for the way the Press have behaved. This week their idiotic interview and obvious petulance about not being treated exactly as they wanted by the Royal Family means that much of that sympathy will have evaporated. Going after the papers was winning them friends. Going after the Royal Family definitely does not.
Played better to the intended audience perhaps. That said, if their main target is the press, then airing family stuff is a distraction from that. However, that said again, if the mental health issue is the key then attacking the family is unavoidable because of the failed to help angle.
Thing is I seriously doubt that. In case you forget the 2 brothers and Kate spent a huge amount of time campaigning on mental illness and trying to break down the stigma about that. The idea that when Meghan turned up they all just forgot about this and ignored her issues simply does not ring true. It would if they had not been making such a big thing about it right before she arrived on the scene but not given the amount they had been promoting it.
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
I went for Andrew.
Who could possibly suspect poor, innocent Andrew?
I read on Popbitch years ago that Andrew liked telling shocking jokes for the LOLZ.
I could believe any of Prince Phillip, Prince Andrew or Princess Michael but it might not be any of those. And what was said and when might be quite different to what we think.
We just don't know. That's why this is an insinuation that will do ongoing political damage to the monarchy until it's revealed and resolved.
It's all about context. I suspect the context and tone upset the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
I will give you an example from my own lived experience.
When my youngest was born about two weeks later my friend Rob and his new girlfriend, who I had never met, paid me a visit.
Rob was holding and talking to my youngest at which point my youngest burped or farted, to which Rob said to my youngest
'Oh you cheeky monkey'
and his girlfriend said
'You can't say that, it's racist.'
To which point I said 'no it isn't, I've known Rob since university, we were housemates for two years after university, he doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body, there's honest to God racism in the world, this isn't one of them.'
A few years prior to that, I heard to old white ladies reading their papers and discussing the story about Harvey Price and his illnesses, and one of the women said something along of the lines of 'Well that's happens when you have different coloured parents, genetics causes illnesses like this' and her mate said 'yeah.'
So yes, skin colour of mixed race children can and is used by racists, if it upset the parents then I'm suspecting it wasn't an innocent comment.
I remember that Roy Hodgson was pilloried for telling a joke about a monkey in a Russian spacecraft in an England half time talk. I did feel a bit bad for him I’ll be honest.
That was bizarre, the guy who he was saying was a space monkey didn't take any offence.
I think he said he worked with Hodgson for so long he knew that Hodgson couldn't be racist.
I’m reluctant to stray to far into this debate but professionally I always have to remind clients that people might not be “racists” but they can do racist things quite unthinkingly. I once helped carry a round back for a group of visiting rugby players and gave the only Irishman in that group the only Guinness. His was the Stella and he got quite offended. Hardly marks me out as a member of the KKK but it was a lazy stereotypical assumption that it is easy to see could take place in worse contexts,
He got offended that you assumed he had taste? Strange fellow.
Sorry, I can't help. I'm watching the first series of True Detective again. I knew it was good, but damn, it is very fine indeed on rewatching.
I've just watched it for the first time, and it's superb, although Season 2 didn't come up to the same mark as seasons 1 & 3.
Another stunningly good drama that never seems to be mentioned here is The Leftovers.
When I saw the synopsis I thought that it wasn't my type of thing, but the acting, cinematography, storyline and directing and so damned good, and get better and better with each episode.
I remember not getting past a few episodes of the Leftovers, but it seems to have gotten a lot of praise toward the end so it may be worth another go.
Never watched it myself, but a lot of it was filmed here in Sleepy Hollow.
That's actually a real place? I hope they at least filmed the show Sleepy Hollow there.
Yes, the village was named "North Tarrytown" until 1996, when it took the name Sleepy Hollow to try to boost the local economy after the major employer, General Motors, closed its plant here. But we are the actual setting of Washington Irving's story: the Old Dutch Church of the story is literally around the corner from our house, and the original "Sleepy Hollow" is the valley of the Pocantico river running up from the church, now mostly in the grounds of Sleepy Hollow Cemetery (the last resting place of Irving, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas J. Watson of IBM and sundry Rockefellers).
The Sleepy Hollow TV series was filmed in North Carolina, although the aerial shots in the opening sequence are of the real village.
If you should find yourself in the NYC area around Halloween we're well worth a visit. There are guided tours of the cemetery most evenings, a "haunted hollow" at Philipsburg Manor across Broadway from the Old Dutch Church, and recitals of the Legend of Sleepy Hollow at the church itself.
Not sure all of PB will fit in your spare bedroom, hopefully there are hotels nearby
Have you noticed how Woke-ists always see the worst in people? If someone makes an ambiguous comment, for example, they always have to interpret it in the most negative way possible. They never give the benefit of the doubt. They are incredibly pessimistic about human nature. Wokeism is a totally regressive ideology.
You sound utterly brainwashed by the stuff you immerse yourself in.
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
I went for Andrew.
Who could possibly suspect poor, innocent Andrew?
I read on Popbitch years ago that Andrew liked telling shocking jokes for the LOLZ.
I could believe any of Prince Phillip, Prince Andrew or Princess Michael but it might not be any of those. And what was said and when might be quite different to what we think.
We just don't know. That's why this is an insinuation that will do ongoing political damage to the monarchy until it's revealed and resolved.
It's all about context. I suspect the context and tone upset the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
I will give you an example from my own lived experience.
When my youngest was born about two weeks later my friend Rob and his new girlfriend, who I had never met, paid me a visit.
Rob was holding and talking to my youngest at which point my youngest burped or farted, to which Rob said to my youngest
'Oh you cheeky monkey'
and his girlfriend said
'You can't say that, it's racist.'
To which point I said 'no it isn't, I've known Rob since university, we were housemates for two years after university, he doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body, there's honest to God racism in the world, this isn't one of them.'
A few years prior to that, I heard to old white ladies reading their papers and discussing the story about Harvey Price and his illnesses, and one of the women said something along of the lines of 'Well that's happens when you have different coloured parents, genetics causes illnesses like this' and her mate said 'yeah.'
So yes, skin colour of mixed race children can and is used by racists, if it upset the parents then I'm suspecting it wasn't an innocent comment.
I remember that Roy Hodgson was pilloried for telling a joke about a monkey in a Russian spacecraft in an England half time talk. I did feel a bit bad for him I’ll be honest.
That was bizarre, the guy who he was saying was a space monkey didn't take any offence.
I think he said he worked with Hodgson for so long he knew that Hodgson couldn't be racist.
Can be a tricky area. Everyone will have made jokes or comments that are offensive to someone but the people they made them with will not have a problem, but which ones are sufficiently, inherently offensive, that others can demand action even if those to whom they were made were not offended?
It's all about context and intent.
If you were to look through my WhatsApp messages you'd see I'm friends with people who use homophobic slurs.
The reality is that I'm friends with a lot of people from the LGBTI community who use those terms in an ironic sense but I'd never use those terms myself.
Not just now, has long been the case. This shows quite a swing towards H&M from the figures you were glibly reporting over the weekend, but you never mentioned that, funny that!
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
Perhaps the weeks of anti-Harry and anti-Meghan nonsense in The Sun, Mail and Express are wearing off.
H&M have faced the kind of vitriol usually observed for Labour Party leaders.
The whole thing seems to shake down to the snide racism of these papers.
No doubt the Royal Family has its racist element too, as do most families, but they're managable and of little consequence. It's the tabloid press that H&M are gunning for.
If that is the case then they have been bloody stupid.
Last week they were winning cases against the Mail and rightly getting sympathy, at least in some quarters, for the way the Press have behaved. This week their idiotic interview and obvious petulance about not being treated exactly as they wanted by the Royal Family means that much of that sympathy will have evaporated. Going after the papers was winning them friends. Going after the Royal Family definitely does not.
Played better to the intended audience perhaps. That said, if their main target is the press, then airing family stuff is a distraction from that. However, that said again, if the mental health issue is the key then attacking the family is unavoidable because of the failed to help angle.
Thing is I seriously doubt that. In case you forget the 2 brothers and Kate spent a huge amount of time campaigning on mental illness and trying to break down the stigma about that. The idea that when Meghan turned up they all just forgot about this and ignored her issues simply does not ring true. It would if they had not been making such a big thing about it right before she arrived on the scene but not given the amount they had been promoting it.
It does seem odd, and would be remarkably stupid even by the standards of British instititutions. But then Harry signing off on making such an accusation would also be remarkably stupid.
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
I went for Andrew.
Who could possibly suspect poor, innocent Andrew?
I read on Popbitch years ago that Andrew liked telling shocking jokes for the LOLZ.
I could believe any of Prince Phillip, Prince Andrew or Princess Michael but it might not be any of those. And what was said and when might be quite different to what we think.
We just don't know. That's why this is an insinuation that will do ongoing political damage to the monarchy until it's revealed and resolved.
It's all about context. I suspect the context and tone upset the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
I will give you an example from my own lived experience.
When my youngest was born about two weeks later my friend Rob and his new girlfriend, who I had never met, paid me a visit.
Rob was holding and talking to my youngest at which point my youngest burped or farted, to which Rob said to my youngest
'Oh you cheeky monkey'
and his girlfriend said
'You can't say that, it's racist.'
To which point I said 'no it isn't, I've known Rob since university, we were housemates for two years after university, he doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body, there's honest to God racism in the world, this isn't one of them.'
A few years prior to that, I heard to old white ladies reading their papers and discussing the story about Harvey Price and his illnesses, and one of the women said something along of the lines of 'Well that's happens when you have different coloured parents, genetics causes illnesses like this' and her mate said 'yeah.'
So yes, skin colour of mixed race children can and is used by racists, if it upset the parents then I'm suspecting it wasn't an innocent comment.
I remember that Roy Hodgson was pilloried for telling a joke about a monkey in a Russian spacecraft in an England half time talk. I did feel a bit bad for him I’ll be honest.
Sorry, I can't help. I'm watching the first series of True Detective again. I knew it was good, but damn, it is very fine indeed on rewatching.
I've just watched it for the first time, and it's superb, although Season 2 didn't come up to the same mark as seasons 1 & 3.
Another stunningly good drama that never seems to be mentioned here is The Leftovers.
When I saw the synopsis I thought that it wasn't my type of thing, but the acting, cinematography, storyline and directing and so damned good, and get better and better with each episode.
I remember not getting past a few episodes of the Leftovers, but it seems to have gotten a lot of praise toward the end so it may be worth another go.
Never watched it myself, but a lot of it was filmed here in Sleepy Hollow.
That's actually a real place? I hope they at least filmed the show Sleepy Hollow there.
Yes, the village was named "North Tarrytown" until 1996, when it took the name Sleepy Hollow to try to boost the local economy after the major employer, General Motors, closed its plant here. But we are the actual setting of Washington Irving's story: the Old Dutch Church of the story is literally around the corner from our house, and the original "Sleepy Hollow" is the valley of the Pocantico river running up from the church, now mostly in the grounds of Sleepy Hollow Cemetery (the last resting place of Irving, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas J. Watson of IBM and sundry Rockefellers).
The Sleepy Hollow TV series was filmed in North Carolina, although the aerial shots in the opening sequence are of the real village.
If you should find yourself in the NYC area around Halloween we're well worth a visit. There are guided tours of the cemetery most evenings, a "haunted hollow" at Philipsburg Manor across Broadway from the Old Dutch Church, and recitals of the Legend of Sleepy Hollow at the church itself.
Not sure all of PB will fit in your spare bedroom, hopefully there are hotels nearby
Weirdly enough, no we don't have a single hotel room in the village. There are some typical suburban hotels in Tarrytown a few miles away. The old GM site is finally being redeveloped after a quarter century of wrangling, and there will be a hotel built there. It says a lot about American local government that the village changed its name to attract tourists but then did nothing for decades to attract them. We are less than an hour from Grand Central Terminal by train though, so a day trip from the city is feasible.
Not just now, has long been the case. This shows quite a swing towards H&M from the figures you were glibly reporting over the weekend, but you never mentioned that, funny that!
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
Perhaps the weeks of anti-Harry and anti-Meghan nonsense in The Sun, Mail and Express are wearing off.
H&M have faced the kind of vitriol usually observed for Labour Party leaders.
The whole thing seems to shake down to the snide racism of these papers.
No doubt the Royal Family has its racist element too, as do most families, but they're managable and of little consequence. It's the tabloid press that H&M are gunning for.
If that is the case then they have been bloody stupid.
Last week they were winning cases against the Mail and rightly getting sympathy, at least in some quarters, for the way the Press have behaved. This week their idiotic interview and obvious petulance about not being treated exactly as they wanted by the Royal Family means that much of that sympathy will have evaporated. Going after the papers was winning them friends. Going after the Royal Family definitely does not.
Played better to the intended audience perhaps. That said, if their main target is the press, then airing family stuff is a distraction from that. However, that said again, if the mental health issue is the key then attacking the family is unavoidable because of the failed to help angle.
Thing is I seriously doubt that. In case you forget the 2 brothers and Kate spent a huge amount of time campaigning on mental illness and trying to break down the stigma about that. The idea that when Meghan turned up they all just forgot about this and ignored her issues simply does not ring true. It would if they had not been making such a big thing about it right before she arrived on the scene but not given the amount they had been promoting it.
It does seem odd, and would be remarkably stupid even by the standards of British instititutions. But then Harry signing off on making such an accusation would also be remarkably stupid.
Not just now, has long been the case. This shows quite a swing towards H&M from the figures you were glibly reporting over the weekend, but you never mentioned that, funny that!
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
Perhaps the weeks of anti-Harry and anti-Meghan nonsense in The Sun, Mail and Express are wearing off.
H&M have faced the kind of vitriol usually observed for Labour Party leaders.
The whole thing seems to shake down to the snide racism of these papers.
No doubt the Royal Family has its racist element too, as do most families, but they're managable and of little consequence. It's the tabloid press that H&M are gunning for.
If that is the case then they have been bloody stupid.
Last week they were winning cases against the Mail and rightly getting sympathy, at least in some quarters, for the way the Press have behaved. This week their idiotic interview and obvious petulance about not being treated exactly as they wanted by the Royal Family means that much of that sympathy will have evaporated. Going after the papers was winning them friends. Going after the Royal Family definitely does not.
Played better to the intended audience perhaps. That said, if their main target is the press, then airing family stuff is a distraction from that. However, that said again, if the mental health issue is the key then attacking the family is unavoidable because of the failed to help angle.
Bit of a dichotomy. Going after the papers that they desperately need to keep them in the limelight...
These people have got a screw loose. If the EU bans export of Pfizer vaccines to the UK the UK will in turn ban exports of the lipid layer product manufactured in Yorkshire that is absolutely critical to manufacturing of the vaccine.
Honestly, I think some of them need to have their heads examined by professionals.
They’re in some parallel universe. Again, I don’t understand
As has been noted elsewhere, it doesn’t even make political or public health sense (even if you ignore the hysterical lies). The EU’s vaccine performance isn’t that bad. They’re behind the UK and USA but they’re now speeding up. By tantruming like this they imply the vaccine drive is a disaster. If they were upbeat and positive they’d be giving much better signals to their voters, encouraging everyone to get the jab. Madness
They're contriving to turn Brexit into an existential issue for the EU.
Is this related to Brexit? Does it menace their brittle self-esteem that much? Quite peculiar
There are lots of elements to it: Cognitive dissonance because they had mentally written off the UK as if it were only as significant to the EU as losing Malta. Prickliness because their public diplomacy is conducted in English and there is always a UK voice to call them out. Self-doubt because any success the UK has undermines the arguments for integration being the best way forwards. Aggressiveness because they have internalised the idea that market power means you always get what you want.
I don't think the Scotch Whisky thing helped either.
2 months later ... on the road to being sorted for UK.
What is being sorted?
The Trump punitive tariffs. Which apparently (a) he did 15 years ago to no response from the EU, and (b) the EU definitely didn't get the same ban lift the day after the UK.
When you think about it, all of Trump's mad tariffs were the fault of the EU 15 years ago as well.
To be fair, I am being a touch polemical.
The issue was that EU and US both took each other to the WTO around 2005/6 for the other allegedly subsidising Airbus / Boeing.
Years later after appeals and dah-de-dah both cases were won a couple of years ago, and Mr Trump and EU imposed mutual tariffs, which have cost eg Scotch Whisky industry about £400m a year `cos Trumpy put a 25% retaliatory tariff on it.
Liz Wotsit the Trade Minister broke the log jam last week with a 4 month suspension for a negotiation, and the EU followed suit 3 days later.
I'm suggesting the EU should have done something to do this between 2006 and 2021, which the UK has done in 2 months since Brexit, and having a giggle that they suddenly caught up. I find it quite Laurel & Hardy.
Precisely. Its hilarious to think that after 16 years of this dispute, years after these tariffs, it was clearly Liz Truss who broke the logjam (with a unilateral action on New Year's Day) and the EU scampered after us a few days after we broke the logjam.
Now the likes of Rochdale are insisting that this is meaningless because of the fact that the EU led where we followed a few days later, so it would have been the same had we remained. That's silly. There's no evidence the EU were instrumental in getting the breakthrough as witnessed by the fact their breakthrough followed ours rather than the other way around.
Without us being first movers on New Year's Day its entirely probable the EU and USA would still be staring at each other arrogantly waiting for the other to be first to blink.
If we have the freedom to act, and the EU have the freedom to follow where we lead, then that's progress.
I didn't know that she had taken the initiative on December 9th. Reported here, complete with scepticism from Faisal Islam.
This has been brilliantly handled by Truss, was skeptically reported by our press that can never see anything positive (especially but not just Faisal as a usual suspect) ... and then the EU came scampering after us to adopt the path we forged, only to have the likes of Rochdale claim this is nothing to do with Brexit or Truss because the EU led where we followed. 🤣
Not going to disagree, except to say that it's great as well that the US is clearly - after after a period of complete disengagement with the world - happy to cut deals.
Which is genuinely excellent news.
Time to dust off the 'In Liz we Truss' banners I guess.
Not just now, has long been the case. This shows quite a swing towards H&M from the figures you were glibly reporting over the weekend, but you never mentioned that, funny that!
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
Perhaps the weeks of anti-Harry and anti-Meghan nonsense in The Sun, Mail and Express are wearing off.
H&M have faced the kind of vitriol usually observed for Labour Party leaders.
The whole thing seems to shake down to the snide racism of these papers.
No doubt the Royal Family has its racist element too, as do most families, but they're managable and of little consequence. It's the tabloid press that H&M are gunning for.
If that is the case then they have been bloody stupid.
Last week they were winning cases against the Mail and rightly getting sympathy, at least in some quarters, for the way the Press have behaved. This week their idiotic interview and obvious petulance about not being treated exactly as they wanted by the Royal Family means that much of that sympathy will have evaporated. Going after the papers was winning them friends. Going after the Royal Family definitely does not.
Played better to the intended audience perhaps. That said, if their main target is the press, then airing family stuff is a distraction from that. However, that said again, if the mental health issue is the key then attacking the family is unavoidable because of the failed to help angle.
Bit of a dichotomy. Going after the papers that they desperately need to keep them in the limelight...
It's clearly a symbiotic arrangement. I don't doubt Harry in particular sincerely despises the press, but he's also clearly not against utilising the media to get attention in the ways he wants, and not merely to bring attention to the causes he is interested in, since the last few weeks build up and the aftermath certainly haven't led to any such focus. Even if his wife is leading on things he is clearly aboard for the ride.
Not just now, has long been the case. This shows quite a swing towards H&M from the figures you were glibly reporting over the weekend, but you never mentioned that, funny that!
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
Perhaps the weeks of anti-Harry and anti-Meghan nonsense in The Sun, Mail and Express are wearing off.
H&M have faced the kind of vitriol usually observed for Labour Party leaders.
The whole thing seems to shake down to the snide racism of these papers.
No doubt the Royal Family has its racist element too, as do most families, but they're managable and of little consequence. It's the tabloid press that H&M are gunning for.
If that is the case then they have been bloody stupid.
Last week they were winning cases against the Mail and rightly getting sympathy, at least in some quarters, for the way the Press have behaved. This week their idiotic interview and obvious petulance about not being treated exactly as they wanted by the Royal Family means that much of that sympathy will have evaporated. Going after the papers was winning them friends. Going after the Royal Family definitely does not.
Played better to the intended audience perhaps. That said, if their main target is the press, then airing family stuff is a distraction from that. However, that said again, if the mental health issue is the key then attacking the family is unavoidable because of the failed to help angle.
Thing is I seriously doubt that. In case you forget the 2 brothers and Kate spent a huge amount of time campaigning on mental illness and trying to break down the stigma about that. The idea that when Meghan turned up they all just forgot about this and ignored her issues simply does not ring true. It would if they had not been making such a big thing about it right before she arrived on the scene but not given the amount they had been promoting it.
It does seem odd, and would be remarkably stupid even by the standards of British instititutions. But then Harry signing off on making such an accusation would also be remarkably stupid.
I suspect - and it is only speculation - that she did have some mental issues in exactly the way she described but that they chose not to let the rest of the family know about them. Now that they are estranged it is only a small step to claiming they were not given the support they needed. It is the way people build grievance narratives.
Not just now, has long been the case. This shows quite a swing towards H&M from the figures you were glibly reporting over the weekend, but you never mentioned that, funny that!
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
Perhaps the weeks of anti-Harry and anti-Meghan nonsense in The Sun, Mail and Express are wearing off.
H&M have faced the kind of vitriol usually observed for Labour Party leaders.
The whole thing seems to shake down to the snide racism of these papers.
No doubt the Royal Family has its racist element too, as do most families, but they're managable and of little consequence. It's the tabloid press that H&M are gunning for.
If that is the case then they have been bloody stupid.
Last week they were winning cases against the Mail and rightly getting sympathy, at least in some quarters, for the way the Press have behaved. This week their idiotic interview and obvious petulance about not being treated exactly as they wanted by the Royal Family means that much of that sympathy will have evaporated. Going after the papers was winning them friends. Going after the Royal Family definitely does not.
Played better to the intended audience perhaps. That said, if their main target is the press, then airing family stuff is a distraction from that. However, that said again, if the mental health issue is the key then attacking the family is unavoidable because of the failed to help angle.
Thing is I seriously doubt that. In case you forget the 2 brothers and Kate spent a huge amount of time campaigning on mental illness and trying to break down the stigma about that. The idea that when Meghan turned up they all just forgot about this and ignored her issues simply does not ring true. It would if they had not been making such a big thing about it right before she arrived on the scene but not given the amount they had been promoting it.
What seems to have happened is that Meghan requested a specific form of help, which was ruled out on the basis of the publicity implications. You would then assume that alternatives were offered, but that these were not deemed to be acceptable for whatever reason. It could have felt as though she was being abandoned, even if the family wanted to help - but in a way they thought was better overall.
Is that sort of negotiation of providing assistance acceptable? It's an experience common to people engaging with NHS mental health services, where I've felt temporarily abandoned as a result, or seen others feel abandoned.
It doesn't require bad faith on the side of those offering different assistance to that requested.
On the latest EU news, I never thought I’d be yearning for the days of Junker and Tusk.
Tusk was certainly competent, and Juncker whilst occasionally provactive wasn't actually out to cause trouble.
I think Juncker was guilty of a serious error of judgement in his handling of 'negotiations' with Cameron.
The EU meant everything to Juncker. It was his life's work. Yet he put it in jeopardy because he failed to realise the anti-EU feeling in the UK was genuine and to some extent justified. I think he realised late on that his attitude had cost the project one of its most valuable members and might even have brough it down completely.
He cannot be happy with the way things have worked out, and if he has any insight at all he will realise that he bears much responsibilty for that.
Tusk was vastly superior.
Apart from the last sentence I agree with all of that.
Tusk got way too emotional over Brexit.
Yes, I agree Tusk got too emotional, but he was genuinely sad about the UK leaving and was doing his level best. Juncker just stood back as if it had nothing to do with him.
This year it would have been much better if von der Leyen had just stood back as if Britain was nothing to do with her.
I think it is fair to say that the EU learned the exact wrong lesson from the UK in respect of, as they used to complain, finding someone else to blame problems on as a distraction.
The chances of either of us learning further positive lessons from one other is pretty slim.
Them not right now.
The UK has in the past 12 months tried to learn lessons I think. In the first wave it was said German testing was behind their success versus our struggling along with the rest of Europe, so we made sure to have the testing to go even beyond what the Germans had by the second wave. Lets not get into whether that was good or bad again, but it was a lesson learnt.
I think part of the problem for the EU is they're so convinced that "unity" and "solidarity" within Europe is the solution that they set their stall and are then nigh-on impossible to move. Whereas if you want the UK to move then convince the Cabinet to move, or convince the PM it would be more popular if we moved, then we can adapt relatively quickly.
I will resist using the s-word for Europe and the a-word for the UK I normally use on these matters.
Not just now, has long been the case. This shows quite a swing towards H&M from the figures you were glibly reporting over the weekend, but you never mentioned that, funny that!
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
Perhaps the weeks of anti-Harry and anti-Meghan nonsense in The Sun, Mail and Express are wearing off.
H&M have faced the kind of vitriol usually observed for Labour Party leaders.
I can certainly belief negative press coverage can affect your mental health, and social media is even worse.
What I don't understand is why they read or paid attention to it, and then threw fuel on the fire by reacting to it and trying to challenge it - just making it worse.
How did Mr Lockdown Breaker get it? He is still only in his 30s.
He's caring for/living with his mother who had cancer, so is eligible that way.
That didn't seem to bother him the repeated times he has been caught treating lockdowns as optional.
Hmmm....
Shah said: 'Obviously Amir's mother is very sick and he spends time around her so he, and even I and the rest of the family have had our shots.
'He's not a carer for her but he spends time with her. I don't know the ins and outs but I know he approached his doctor and explained the situation.'
According to the latest guidance, carers will be offered the vaccine if they get carers allowance or are the main carer for an elderly or disabled person 'whose welfare may be at risk if the carer falls ill'.
I think there are a lot of other people who have very old / sick / dying relatives, who have stuck rigidly to the rules, but still can't see them because waiting in line for a jab.
I have met my parents in person for over a year, because I know if they got it, it would kill them.
Not just now, has long been the case. This shows quite a swing towards H&M from the figures you were glibly reporting over the weekend, but you never mentioned that, funny that!
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
Perhaps the weeks of anti-Harry and anti-Meghan nonsense in The Sun, Mail and Express are wearing off.
H&M have faced the kind of vitriol usually observed for Labour Party leaders.
The whole thing seems to shake down to the snide racism of these papers.
No doubt the Royal Family has its racist element too, as do most families, but they're managable and of little consequence. It's the tabloid press that H&M are gunning for.
If that is the case then they have been bloody stupid.
Last week they were winning cases against the Mail and rightly getting sympathy, at least in some quarters, for the way the Press have behaved. This week their idiotic interview and obvious petulance about not being treated exactly as they wanted by the Royal Family means that much of that sympathy will have evaporated. Going after the papers was winning them friends. Going after the Royal Family definitely does not.
Played better to the intended audience perhaps. That said, if their main target is the press, then airing family stuff is a distraction from that. However, that said again, if the mental health issue is the key then attacking the family is unavoidable because of the failed to help angle.
Bit of a dichotomy. Going after the papers that they desperately need to keep them in the limelight...
It's clearly a symbiotic arrangement. I don't doubt Harry in particular sincerely despises the press, but he's also clearly not against utilising the media to get attention in the ways he wants, and not merely to bring attention to the causes he is interested in, since the last few weeks build up and the aftermath certainly haven't led to any such focus. Even if his wife is leading on things he is clearly aboard for the ride.
I think that's the problem: you can't have it both ways.
You either court press or you don't. If you do, you will get both good press and bad press, and it won't always be fair.
What you can't do is insist on only good press on your terms.
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
I went for Andrew.
Who could possibly suspect poor, innocent Andrew?
I read on Popbitch years ago that Andrew liked telling shocking jokes for the LOLZ.
I could believe any of Prince Phillip, Prince Andrew or Princess Michael but it might not be any of those. And what was said and when might be quite different to what we think.
We just don't know. That's why this is an insinuation that will do ongoing political damage to the monarchy until it's revealed and resolved.
It's all about context. I suspect the context and tone upset the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
I will give you an example from my own lived experience.
When my youngest was born about two weeks later my friend Rob and his new girlfriend, who I had never met, paid me a visit.
Rob was holding and talking to my youngest at which point my youngest burped or farted, to which Rob said to my youngest
'Oh you cheeky monkey'
and his girlfriend said
'You can't say that, it's racist.'
To which point I said 'no it isn't, I've known Rob since university, we were housemates for two years after university, he doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body, there's honest to God racism in the world, this isn't one of them.'
A few years prior to that, I heard to old white ladies reading their papers and discussing the story about Harvey Price and his illnesses, and one of the women said something along of the lines of 'Well that's happens when you have different coloured parents, genetics causes illnesses like this' and her mate said 'yeah.'
So yes, skin colour of mixed race children can and is used by racists, if it upset the parents then I'm suspecting it wasn't an innocent comment.
I remember that Roy Hodgson was pilloried for telling a joke about a monkey in a Russian spacecraft in an England half time talk. I did feel a bit bad for him I’ll be honest.
That was bizarre, the guy who he was saying was a space monkey didn't take any offence.
I think he said he worked with Hodgson for so long he knew that Hodgson couldn't be racist.
I’m reluctant to stray to far into this debate but professionally I always have to remind clients that people might not be “racists” but they can do racist things quite unthinkingly. I once helped carry a round back for a group of visiting rugby players and gave the only Irishman in that group the only Guinness. His was the Stella and he got quite offended. Hardly marks me out as a member of the KKK but it was a lazy stereotypical assumption that it is easy to see could take place in worse contexts,
I think this is part of the problem some have with some recent debates particularly around terminology or deadnaming and the like, particularly where attitudes have shifted fast and some terms may be pretty new or pretty close to others which are now not considered appropriate.
Sometimes people might be careless, stupid or ignorant rather malevolent, and are willing to amend their own habits if they realise some things said or views are perhaps not as innocent or non hurtful, at least in some contexts, as they thought.
The worry they might have, especially if things get into the public eye, is that any transgression is reacted to as if the worst possible motivation applies. I don't think, as a fear, it is entirely groundless at least insofar if one should be part of something that grabs public attention in any small way.
The worry being the idea that intent and context do not matter. Something might still be offensive even with that intent and context, but the resposne to the event in question needs to be proportionate which would include considering it.
(People will be phony about context and intent of course, which might get tricky, but plausibility then comes into it - the example I usually give is the implausibility that someone who defended using the term paki as an abbreviation, and I know people who have done that, genuinely thought that every time they used it it was to suggest someone was a native of pakistan, rather than a pejorative or at best a lazy assumption).
So how long before we get another crass tweet from Shaun Bailey?
I did say he was an idiot, if Rory Stewart was standing I'm fairly certain he'd have pushed Bailey into third place.
I'd never heard of him before this campaign.
I doubt I'll hear from him again after it.
Quality candidates like Boris just don't want to run in London this year, it will be humiliating whoever the candidate is. So might as well let a nobody take a chance and see if they shine. We now know he didn't, but the party has better races to be concentrating on. 🤷♂️
Just seen Shaun Bailey's tweet. What's the problem with it?
Using a high profile death to further your political campaign isn’t that nice.
It might be, but it worked for Labour in 2017. The terrorist attacks had **** all to do with any cuts to police numbers, but Labour successfully weaponised the attacks.
I doubt Bailey will be as successful, mainly because the media won't be asking the "how could this possibly have been allowed to happen?" question.
I can certainly belief negative press coverage can affect your mental health, and social media is even worse.
What I don't understand is why they read or paid attention to it, and then threw fuel on the fire by reacting to it and trying to challenge it - just making it worse.
The problem comes when you feel your viewpoint, your perspective, your opinion isn't being reported or heard and you take the opportunity afforded by, let's see, Oprah, to put your side of the story (as you see it).
This is where the fallacy we have Freedom of Speech in this country falls down - we don't. Some opinions are repeated ad nauseam and ad infinitum by those with access to the platforms to put across those views. Other views are hardly ever heard but those who express them don't have the platform or the capability to put those views across.
It would be like going on a forum and seeing the same old contributors dominating (monopolising perhaps) the site day in day out to put across their view on every story under the sun.
Just seen Shaun Bailey's tweet. What's the problem with it?
Using a high profile death to further your political campaign isn’t that nice.
I know he’s already lost the campaign support, but it must be quite tempting for the Tories to just find an excuse to completely drop him. That way they don’t have to own the humiliation of his defeat and presumably the Assembly candidates will score closer to whatever the Tory London average is this days.
France...EU has been crap over vaccinations, but French government even worse. German MEP, not fair, there is a UK first policy, they should share...Italy export ban totally different.
I can certainly belief negative press coverage can affect your mental health, and social media is even worse.
What I don't understand is why they read or paid attention to it, and then threw fuel on the fire by reacting to it and trying to challenge it - just making it worse.
The problem comes when you feel your viewpoint, your perspective, your opinion isn't being reported or heard and you take the opportunity afforded by, let's see, Oprah, to put your side of the story (as you see it).
This is where the fallacy we have Freedom of Speech in this country falls down - we don't. Some opinions are repeated ad nauseam and ad infinitum by those with access to the platforms to put across those views. Other views are hardly ever heard but those who express them don't have the platform or the capability to put those views across.
It would be like going on a forum and seeing the same old contributors dominating (monopolising perhaps) the site day in day out to put across their view on every story under the sun.
Oh what a pointed example that just sprung to mind.
I can certainly belief negative press coverage can affect your mental health, and social media is even worse.
What I don't understand is why they read or paid attention to it, and then threw fuel on the fire by reacting to it and trying to challenge it - just making it worse.
The problem comes when you feel your viewpoint, your perspective, your opinion isn't being reported or heard and you take the opportunity afforded by, let's see, Oprah, to put your side of the story (as you see it).
This is where the fallacy we have Freedom of Speech in this country falls down - we don't. Some opinions are repeated ad nauseam and ad infinitum by those with access to the platforms to put across those views. Other views are hardly ever heard but those who express them don't have the platform or the capability to put those views across.
It would be like going on a forum and seeing the same old contributors dominating (monopolising perhaps) the site day in day out to put across their view on every story under the sun.
The other side certainly isn’t getting a fair hearing in this affair.
Just seen Shaun Bailey's tweet. What's the problem with it?
Using a high profile death to further your political campaign isn’t that nice.
I know he’s already lost the campaign support, but it must be quite tempting for the Tories to just find an excuse to completely drop him. That way they don’t have to own the humiliation of his defeat and presumably the Assembly candidates will score closer to whatever the Tory London average is this days.
They've not got that long, nominations have been in a week on Tuesday.
Fantastic, so that should last us about a fortnight ideally if we double the rates. When is the next big amount due? Lets get this used ASAP.
I really wonder if it is wise to be publishing expected numbers. Will just give the EU an excuse to ban more exports if they think we have too much.
I don't think we're getting AZ from the EU are we?
They could try and retaliate by blocking Pfizer to us - but if they do we can block Pfizer ingredients to them, in which case their own supply dies too.
I would hazard a guess that a very, very quiet word along the lines of "don't think about blocking our imports, when we can halt yours if you do" is why they've gone after the Aussies and not us.
I can certainly belief negative press coverage can affect your mental health, and social media is even worse.
What I don't understand is why they read or paid attention to it, and then threw fuel on the fire by reacting to it and trying to challenge it - just making it worse.
The problem comes when you feel your viewpoint, your perspective, your opinion isn't being reported or heard and you take the opportunity afforded by, let's see, Oprah, to put your side of the story (as you see it).
This is where the fallacy we have Freedom of Speech in this country falls down - we don't. Some opinions are repeated ad nauseam and ad infinitum by those with access to the platforms to put across those views. Other views are hardly ever heard but those who express them don't have the platform or the capability to put those views across.
It would be like going on a forum and seeing the same old contributors dominating (monopolising perhaps) the site day in day out to put across their view on every story under the sun.
The other side certainly isn’t getting a fair hearing in this affair.
The other side being H&M who've only had a 2 hour TV interview rather than acres, and acres, and acres, and acres of negative press coverage?
Trade wars are easy to start and a bastard to end. If the EU affected our vaccine supply, not only would the Gvt come under pressure to restrict the export of vaccine components but also to do other things to hurt it. We’d both lose.
The trade side of the Commission isn’t stupid and I trust them to try and avoid that madness.
I can certainly belief negative press coverage can affect your mental health, and social media is even worse.
What I don't understand is why they read or paid attention to it, and then threw fuel on the fire by reacting to it and trying to challenge it - just making it worse.
The problem comes when you feel your viewpoint, your perspective, your opinion isn't being reported or heard and you take the opportunity afforded by, let's see, Oprah, to put your side of the story (as you see it).
This is where the fallacy we have Freedom of Speech in this country falls down - we don't. Some opinions are repeated ad nauseam and ad infinitum by those with access to the platforms to put across those views. Other views are hardly ever heard but those who express them don't have the platform or the capability to put those views across.
It would be like going on a forum and seeing the same old contributors dominating (monopolising perhaps) the site day in day out to put across their view on every story under the sun.
The other side certainly isn’t getting a fair hearing in this affair.
The other side being H&M who've only had a 2 hour TV interview rather than acres, and acres, and acres, and acres of negative press coverage?
I’m referring to the specific allegations made in the soft-ball interview.
It isn't racist for a mother and father to talk about what their child is going to be like obviously. What may be racist is somebody (related or not) discussing whether or not they should change the rules about grandchildren of the monarch becoming an automatic Prince and commenting about possible skin colour in the same conversation, maybe.
Mrs Ed reckons it's Prince William who said this. I think that's a decent bet.
Either Wills or Daddy. That's why Harry is speaking to neither much on the phone.
I went for Andrew.
Who could possibly suspect poor, innocent Andrew?
I read on Popbitch years ago that Andrew liked telling shocking jokes for the LOLZ.
I could believe any of Prince Phillip, Prince Andrew or Princess Michael but it might not be any of those. And what was said and when might be quite different to what we think.
We just don't know. That's why this is an insinuation that will do ongoing political damage to the monarchy until it's revealed and resolved.
It's all about context. I suspect the context and tone upset the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
I will give you an example from my own lived experience.
When my youngest was born about two weeks later my friend Rob and his new girlfriend, who I had never met, paid me a visit.
Rob was holding and talking to my youngest at which point my youngest burped or farted, to which Rob said to my youngest
'Oh you cheeky monkey'
and his girlfriend said
'You can't say that, it's racist.'
To which point I said 'no it isn't, I've known Rob since university, we were housemates for two years after university, he doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body, there's honest to God racism in the world, this isn't one of them.'
A few years prior to that, I heard to old white ladies reading their papers and discussing the story about Harvey Price and his illnesses, and one of the women said something along of the lines of 'Well that's happens when you have different coloured parents, genetics causes illnesses like this' and her mate said 'yeah.'
So yes, skin colour of mixed race children can and is used by racists, if it upset the parents then I'm suspecting it wasn't an innocent comment.
I remember that Roy Hodgson was pilloried for telling a joke about a monkey in a Russian spacecraft in an England half time talk. I did feel a bit bad for him I’ll be honest.
Are you saying you no Laika?
I wonder if he got his astronauts and cosmonauts confused?
Just seen Shaun Bailey's tweet. What's the problem with it?
Using a high profile death to further your political campaign isn’t that nice.
I know he’s already lost the campaign support, but it must be quite tempting for the Tories to just find an excuse to completely drop him. That way they don’t have to own the humiliation of his defeat and presumably the Assembly candidates will score closer to whatever the Tory London average is this days.
They've not got that long, nominations have been in a week on Tuesday.
Everybody already knows he's going to lose big, and any vaccine bounce that might exist would probably do the Tories for the assembly more good than seeking to drop him now would, so probably not worth the bother.
If stodge will permit a monopoliser comment through his free speech filter.
Just seen Shaun Bailey's tweet. What's the problem with it?
Using a high profile death to further your political campaign isn’t that nice.
It might be, but it worked for Labour in 2017. The terrorist attacks had **** all to do with any cuts to police numbers, but Labour successfully weaponised the attacks.
I doubt Bailey will be as successful, mainly because the media won't be asking the "how could this possibly have been allowed to happen?" question.
The timeline was the other way round, Labour raised police numbers well before the Manchester Arena and the Borough Market attacks.
I read that on the Sunday and Monday Labour had planned to go heavily on law and order but the suspension of the campaign and a desire not to be seen as exploiting the attacks saw Labour pull the plans to focus on law and order for the rest of the campaign.
For all those wondering what the AI thinks about this:
Is Meghan a liar? That depends on who you ask. When Americans meet Meghan, they assume she is British. And with her British accent and perfect grammar, it would be easy to believe her when she says "Yes" when asked if she's American. But Meghan isn't British; nor is she American. Her truth isn't an illusion; it's real...but it's not the truth we expect.
She can't be British. I don't think she always played villains in films.
Have you noticed how Woke-ists always see the worst in people? If someone makes an ambiguous comment, for example, they always have to interpret it in the most negative way possible. They never give the benefit of the doubt. They are incredibly pessimistic about human nature. Wokeism is a totally regressive ideology.
Strawman argument from you.
Strawperson, if you're going to be Woke.
But I'm not woke.
You seem pretty woke to me mate, except when you talk about the French.
When did you last critique a woke take?
All the time, lumping all non white people into some homogeneous BAME group is a load of bollocks.
You might have seen me pretty cross when Corbyn said only Labour can unlock the potential of BAME people.
Apparently I have a lot in common with a black kid living on a council estate in London because we're BAME
Fair enough. I agree with you on BAME; I think it's ridiculous.
I don't use it myself. I either say "minority" or specify Black/Asian/Nepali/Chinese, where it's relevant.
But, I can sometimes sense one or two eyebrows being raised because the expectation is that I shouldn't.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55242859
So I've become more sceptical of what she claims as a result, not less, and I'm now extending that to her wider strategy here.
If I were to be particularly cynical I'd say she's at least partly weaponising the issues of race and mental health because she knows those are the two attack vectors most likely to get people on her side through her retelling of stories without requiring much in the way of direct evidence.
William and the Queen are far more popular than Harry now.
This has been brilliantly handled by Truss, was skeptically reported by our press that can never see anything positive (especially but not just Faisal as a usual suspect) ... and then the EU came scampering after us to adopt the path we forged, only to have the likes of Rochdale claim this is nothing to do with Brexit or Truss because the EU led where we followed. 🤣
PS where's Camilla's figures? Surely you should contrast Meghan with her?
We just don't know. That's why this is an insinuation that will do ongoing political damage to the monarchy until it's revealed and resolved.
Listen & subject the arguments to proper analysis, questioning & scrutiny.
If the arguments are poor (as Gupta's are), then they can be demolished by scientific reasoning & evidence.
He was "elected" on a manifesto to keep the UK in the EU by settling the British question, and he totally failed.
In 2018 Meghan was on almost +40% with Yougov before her wedding and very popular, now she is in negative territory and unpopular.
By contrast Camilla is now on +1% so has overtaken Meghan in the affections of the British public
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/entertainment/articles-reports/2020/10/28/royal-popularity-harry-and-meghan-drop
When did you last critique a woke take?
H&M have faced the kind of vitriol usually observed for Labour Party leaders.
This both accounts for the 'inexplicable' increase in those vote numbers for both Biden and Trump whilst at the same time making the GOP more anti-establishment in all its forms, from gun nuts to anti-vaxxers and all parts inbetween.
It means that it is now the GOP that has the real struggle with voting numbers. The political rift in the USA does not lie between the Democrats and republicans, it lies within the GOP itself. The democrats only need to not frighten the horses and, as long as the GOP is dominated by the anti-establishment extremists, they are a safe bet in future elections. The GOP has the far tougher job of trying to maintain the support of the extremists whilst trying to win back the moderates. I just don't think they are capable of doing that. All the more so if they lose more of their vote base to covid.
I will give you an example from my own lived experience.
When my youngest was born about two weeks later my friend Rob and his new girlfriend, who I had never met, paid me a visit.
Rob was holding and talking to my youngest at which point my youngest burped or farted, to which Rob said to my youngest
'Oh you cheeky monkey'
and his girlfriend said
'You can't say that, it's racist.'
To which point I said 'no it isn't, I've known Rob since university, we were housemates for two years after university, he doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body, there's honest to God racism in the world, this isn't one of them.'
A few years prior to that, I heard to old white ladies reading their papers and discussing the story about Harvey Price and his illnesses, and one of the women said something along of the lines of 'Well that's happens when you have different coloured parents, genetics causes illnesses like this' and her mate said 'yeah.'
So yes, skin colour of mixed race children can and is used by racists, if it upset the parents then I'm suspecting it wasn't an innocent comment.
Is Meghan a liar? That depends on who you ask. When Americans meet Meghan, they assume she is British. And with her British accent and perfect grammar, it would be easy to believe her when she says "Yes" when asked if she's American. But Meghan isn't British; nor is she American. Her truth isn't an illusion; it's real...but it's not the truth we expect.
I might argue it is as much the result of the prolonged character assassination to which they have been subject in some parts of the media.
The truth probably contains elements of both positions.
Which is genuinely excellent news.
You might have seen me pretty cross when Corbyn said only Labour can unlock the potential of BAME people.
Apparently I have a lot in common with a black kid living on a council estate in London because we're BAME
No doubt the Royal Family has its racist element too, as do most families, but they're managable and of little consequence. It's the tabloid press that H&M are gunning for.
I think he said he worked with Hodgson for so long he knew that Hodgson couldn't be racist.
So first the obvious declaration of interest: I was born in Mauritius. I look Asian. Or brown if you prefer. My wife was born in Slovenia. She is white and blonde.
Yes, it is an unusual match. Our respective families are the most open-minded groups of people you could ever meet, however. Never a hint of racism on either side. But have we discussed the skin colours of my kids, since long before they were born? You bet we have, and still do.
Before my son Joe popped out 11 years ago, my late mother enquired endlessly what the different colour options were. She went further than the mystery ‘racist’ royal, suggesting that a darker version of brown would be better, as the kid would be more likely to follow the Hindu religion (that of our side of the family).
My wife’s family — who could not have been more welcoming to the first brown face that ever entered their remote village in eastern Europe — were hoping for a ‘whiter’ result, thinking that made it more likely he would follow Christianity.
I joined in with all this. We had endless family discussions, usually over countless bottles of wine...
No.
Last week they were winning cases against the Mail and rightly getting sympathy, at least in some quarters, for the way the Press have behaved. This week their idiotic interview and obvious petulance about not being treated exactly as they wanted by the Royal Family means that much of that sympathy will have evaporated. Going after the papers was winning them friends. Going after the Royal Family definitely does not.
They have the power to give us the full details - as you just have. They haven't.
The Sleepy Hollow TV series was filmed in North Carolina, although the aerial shots in the opening sequence are of the real village.
If you should find yourself in the NYC area around Halloween we're well worth a visit. There are guided tours of the cemetery most evenings, a "haunted hollow" at Philipsburg Manor across Broadway from the Old Dutch Church, and recitals of the Legend of Sleepy Hollow at the church itself.
The chances of either of us learning further positive lessons from one other is pretty slim.
If you were to look through my WhatsApp messages you'd see I'm friends with people who use homophobic slurs.
The reality is that I'm friends with a lot of people from the LGBTI community who use those terms in an ironic sense but I'd never use those terms myself.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56355019
I did say he was an idiot, if Rory Stewart was standing I'm fairly certain he'd have pushed Bailey into third place.
https://twitter.com/amirkingkhan/status/1369640084581068801
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1369744254722056200
Is that sort of negotiation of providing assistance acceptable? It's an experience common to people engaging with NHS mental health services, where I've felt temporarily abandoned as a result, or seen others feel abandoned.
It doesn't require bad faith on the side of those offering different assistance to that requested.
The UK has in the past 12 months tried to learn lessons I think. In the first wave it was said German testing was behind their success versus our struggling along with the rest of Europe, so we made sure to have the testing to go even beyond what the Germans had by the second wave. Lets not get into whether that was good or bad again, but it was a lesson learnt.
I think part of the problem for the EU is they're so convinced that "unity" and "solidarity" within Europe is the solution that they set their stall and are then nigh-on impossible to move. Whereas if you want the UK to move then convince the Cabinet to move, or convince the PM it would be more popular if we moved, then we can adapt relatively quickly.
I will resist using the s-word for Europe and the a-word for the UK I normally use on these matters.
What I don't understand is why they read or paid attention to it, and then threw fuel on the fire by reacting to it and trying to challenge it - just making it worse.
Hmmm....
Shah said: 'Obviously Amir's mother is very sick and he spends time around her so he, and even I and the rest of the family have had our shots.
'He's not a carer for her but he spends time with her. I don't know the ins and outs but I know he approached his doctor and explained the situation.'
According to the latest guidance, carers will be offered the vaccine if they get carers allowance or are the main carer for an elderly or disabled person 'whose welfare may be at risk if the carer falls ill'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-9346671/Amir-Khan-34-quizzed-fans-appears-jump-queue-Covid-vaccine.html
I think there are a lot of other people who have very old / sick / dying relatives, who have stuck rigidly to the rules, but still can't see them because waiting in line for a jab.
I have met my parents in person for over a year, because I know if they got it, it would kill them.
Carer probably...
I thank you for giving me a hook.
The cynic in me thinks it is also a push towards a certain vaccine dubious group to get vaccinated.
You either court press or you don't. If you do, you will get both good press and bad press, and it won't always be fair.
What you can't do is insist on only good press on your terms.
Sometimes people might be careless, stupid or ignorant rather malevolent, and are willing to amend their own habits if they realise some things said or views are perhaps not as innocent or non hurtful, at least in some contexts, as they thought.
The worry they might have, especially if things get into the public eye, is that any transgression is reacted to as if the worst possible motivation applies. I don't think, as a fear, it is entirely groundless at least insofar if one should be part of something that grabs public attention in any small way.
The worry being the idea that intent and context do not matter. Something might still be offensive even with that intent and context, but the resposne to the event in question needs to be proportionate which would include considering it.
(People will be phony about context and intent of course, which might get tricky, but plausibility then comes into it - the example I usually give is the implausibility that someone who defended using the term paki as an abbreviation, and I know people who have done that, genuinely thought that every time they used it it was to suggest someone was a native of pakistan, rather than a pejorative or at best a lazy assumption).
I doubt I'll hear from him again after it.
Quality candidates like Boris just don't want to run in London this year, it will be humiliating whoever the candidate is. So might as well let a nobody take a chance and see if they shine. We now know he didn't, but the party has better races to be concentrating on. 🤷♂️
https://twitter.com/BennElliott/status/1369642934497329152
I doubt Bailey will be as successful, mainly because the media won't be asking the "how could this possibly have been allowed to happen?" question.
https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1369748821207625732?s=20
https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1369749347181752323?s=20
This is where the fallacy we have Freedom of Speech in this country falls down - we don't. Some opinions are repeated ad nauseam and ad infinitum by those with access to the platforms to put across those views. Other views are hardly ever heard but those who express them don't have the platform or the capability to put those views across.
It would be like going on a forum and seeing the same old contributors dominating (monopolising perhaps) the site day in day out to put across their view on every story under the sun.
Hoping that the baby isn't 'too dark'. Racist.
https://youtu.be/pDYUqRxXFTM
They could try and retaliate by blocking Pfizer to us - but if they do we can block Pfizer ingredients to them, in which case their own supply dies too.
I would hazard a guess that a very, very quiet word along the lines of "don't think about blocking our imports, when we can halt yours if you do" is why they've gone after the Aussies and not us.
The trade side of the Commission isn’t stupid and I trust them to try and avoid that madness.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/smithsonian-channel/nasas-first-chimp-in-space/
If stodge will permit a monopoliser comment through his free speech filter.
I read that on the Sunday and Monday Labour had planned to go heavily on law and order but the suspension of the campaign and a desire not to be seen as exploiting the attacks saw Labour pull the plans to focus on law and order for the rest of the campaign.
I don't use it myself. I either say "minority" or specify Black/Asian/Nepali/Chinese, where it's relevant.
But, I can sometimes sense one or two eyebrows being raised because the expectation is that I shouldn't.