Actually I think it is the right decision and will be appreciated
Of course it is - and when normalcy returns I'm sure the PM will be a guest at the Service of Remembrance when that occurs - in the meantime, taking a place to exclude a family member would have been the height of insensitivity.
Actually I think it is the right decision and will be appreciated
Of course it is - and when normalcy returns I'm sure the PM will be a guest at the Service of Remembrance when that occurs - in the meantime, taking a place to exclude a family member would have been the height of insensitivity.
Indeed. He would also have looked quite conspicuously out of place. The only non family member in a sad, intimately familial occasion. The right choice
UNLESS the Queen decided she could have dropped Andrew for the occasion
From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
Didn't he hunt animals ?
yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
Hunted animals for fun.
Something rarely described as progressive.
Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
Indeed
So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
Yep
My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.
She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.
She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
No
Too young
Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.
She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
Further to that.
The family that made it through the war were occupied by the English.
Those who remained in Germany absolutely hated the English until the day they died given how badly they felt the English treated them in the months and years after the war ended.
The thought process that creates that attitude interests me, especially that it is treatment *after* the War. Could you elaborate?
Why "English", not "British"?
I've been reading a bit of D-Day history, essentially first hand accounts from German defenders of the Atlantic Wall this week, and I'd be interested to hear more on this.
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
He is a 'someone reasonably sensible for the time being' leader who knows full well he won't become PM. His party know this too.
The problem for Labour, actually one of many, is who will?
I think this underestimates the chance of SKS becoming PM, though I agree the chance is small. But, as long as he is leader, SKS becomes PM, for all statistically practical purposes, on the single contingency that the Tories fail to get enough seats to form a government. And while Labour winning x zillion seats to win outright has a negligible chance, the chances of the Tories not winning c320+ seats is real. SKS should not be written off.
If he has a different strategy from that one, call it the 'boring limpet' approach - I give it 25-30% chance - he certainly hasn't told us what it is.
His chance is effectively contingent not on him succeeding, he is too surrounded by nonentities for that, but the Tories wheels coming off. It may not look likely but I bet Boris thinks about it every day.
It's the Economy, innit?
As the pandemic finally recedes (God willing) we are left with the economy, which, to be honest, I expected to be in a far worse position than it is.
Inasmuch as I expected anything, economically, at the beginning of Covid I thought we were looking at a Great Depression, 15% unemployment, 10% permanent loss of output, just horrific. Instead, governments have borrowed and stimulated their way out of the toilet, with Biden wading in with cool trillions. UK unemployment right now is 5%.
5%!
Yes it's kind of imaginary, but the major governments of the world - esp the hard-hit West - may have fucked up their Covid response, but they've done a pretty good job of avoiding economic disaster
The debt may, in the end, kill us, but that won't happen for a few years.
Ergo, the Tories should be fine if they go to the people in 2023 (probably) or even 2024. There will be a post-plague mini-boom, and the economic endorphins will last until the election
Starmer has a near-impossible task
The monetarists think the shit will hit the fan quite soon.
"@CaminoMortera 60 per cent of people with an appointment to get AstraZeneca jab in Madrid did not show up today. "
That is not good news
Not only that, but a city the size of Madrid stalling vaccination by just a day would almost certainly result in more deaths than the vaccine may cause even if every citizen was given AZ.
Of course it would.
Why do so few people understand the basics of risk?
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
He is a 'someone reasonably sensible for the time being' leader who knows full well he won't become PM. His party know this too.
The problem for Labour, actually one of many, is who will?
I think this underestimates the chance of SKS becoming PM, though I agree the chance is small. But, as long as he is leader, SKS becomes PM, for all statistically practical purposes, on the single contingency that the Tories fail to get enough seats to form a government. And while Labour winning x zillion seats to win outright has a negligible chance, the chances of the Tories not winning c320+ seats is real. SKS should not be written off.
If he has a different strategy from that one, call it the 'boring limpet' approach - I give it 25-30% chance - he certainly hasn't told us what it is.
His chance is effectively contingent not on him succeeding, he is too surrounded by nonentities for that, but the Tories wheels coming off. It may not look likely but I bet Boris thinks about it every day.
It's the Economy, innit?
As the pandemic finally recedes (God willing) we are left with the economy, which, to be honest, I expected to be in a far worse position than it is.
Inasmuch as I expected anything, economically, at the beginning of Covid I thought we were looking at a Great Depression, 15% unemployment, 10% permanent loss of output, just horrific. Instead, governments have borrowed and stimulated their way out of the toilet, with Biden wading in with cool trillions. UK unemployment right now is 5%.
5%!
Yes it's kind of imaginary, but the major governments of the world - esp the hard-hit West - may have fucked up their Covid response, but they've done a pretty good job of avoiding economic disaster
The debt may, in the end, kill us, but that won't happen for a few years.
Ergo, the Tories should be fine if they go to the people in 2023 (probably) or even 2024. There will be a post-plague mini-boom, and the economic endorphins will last until the election
Starmer has a near-impossible task
The monetarists think the shit will hit the fan quite soon.
I don't. Why would it? All the major economies of the world are in agreement, the markets will be whipped into shape, psychologically. Let the boom roll, it benefits everyone
I don't see any powerful chastening influence, China will be just as keen on all this as America and Europe. Float all the boats
Taken the 8th to the 9th - so at least some of it would have been pre-announcement.
If the conservatives are at 45% and not doing well in Scotland where are they in England and Wales
This was what I said the other day! Especially as Labour have added a few points in Scotland.
That would be true if Labour had surged to circa 30% in Scotland - but current polling has the party in the 18% - 20% range there - ie little changed from the 18.6% received in December 2019. Across GB as a whole , Labour appears to be on 36% compared with 33% at the GE.
Taken the 8th to the 9th - so at least some of it would have been pre-announcement.
If the conservatives are at 45% and not doing well in Scotland where are they in England and Wales
This was what I said the other day! Especially as Labour have added a few points in Scotland.
That would be true if Labour had surged to circa 30% in Scotland - but current polling has the party in the 18% - 20% range there - ie little changed from the 18.6% received in December 2019. Across GB as a whole , Labour appears to be on 36% compared with 33% at the GE.
And we are about to get our arses spanked in the locals.
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
Nonsense. He sounded fine. You're just saying this to bring yourself in line with the polls. It's called chasing shrewdness when you're not. When the polls change you'll forget this comment. I won't though. I forget nothing. Call me Nellie the Elephant. Well, no, don't - I'd hate that - but you get the point.
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
Sounds like the bloke in the Tunes advert from the 80s - “a return to Dottingum” I think it was
Very Milibandesque in his manner as well.
God, we really are the same (aged) generation, aren't we?
I remember that advert distinctly
The other day I genuinely couldn’t remember how old I was, that felt like a sign of ageing
Taken the 8th to the 9th - so at least some of it would have been pre-announcement.
If the conservatives are at 45% and not doing well in Scotland where are they in England and Wales
This was what I said the other day! Especially as Labour have added a few points in Scotland.
That would be true if Labour had surged to circa 30% in Scotland - but current polling has the party in the 18% - 20% range there - ie little changed from the 18.6% received in December 2019. Across GB as a whole , Labour appears to be on 36% compared with 33% at the GE.
And we are about to get our arses spanked in the locals.
The other things the national polling fails to tell clearly is how the votes are spread across the country - we know Labour are doing wel in London where the Tories are down a little, but we don't know that much about the Midlands or the NE. However, there have been some reports on here suggesting that the Mayorals in Teesside are looking bad for Labour. I've not heard anything about Andy Street for examp,e though in the Midlands mayoral. Wales could be interesting too.
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
He is a 'someone reasonably sensible for the time being' leader who knows full well he won't become PM. His party know this too.
The problem for Labour, actually one of many, is who will?
I think this underestimates the chance of SKS becoming PM, though I agree the chance is small. But, as long as he is leader, SKS becomes PM, for all statistically practical purposes, on the single contingency that the Tories fail to get enough seats to form a government. And while Labour winning x zillion seats to win outright has a negligible chance, the chances of the Tories not winning c320+ seats is real. SKS should not be written off.
If he has a different strategy from that one, call it the 'boring limpet' approach - I give it 25-30% chance - he certainly hasn't told us what it is.
His chance is effectively contingent not on him succeeding, he is too surrounded by nonentities for that, but the Tories wheels coming off. It may not look likely but I bet Boris thinks about it every day.
It's the Economy, innit?
As the pandemic finally recedes (God willing) we are left with the economy, which, to be honest, I expected to be in a far worse position than it is.
Inasmuch as I expected anything, economically, at the beginning of Covid I thought we were looking at a Great Depression, 15% unemployment, 10% permanent loss of output, just horrific. Instead, governments have borrowed and stimulated their way out of the toilet, with Biden wading in with cool trillions. UK unemployment right now is 5%.
5%!
Yes it's kind of imaginary, but the major governments of the world - esp the hard-hit West - may have fucked up their Covid response, but they've done a pretty good job of avoiding economic disaster
The debt may, in the end, kill us, but that won't happen for a few years.
Ergo, the Tories should be fine if they go to the people in 2023 (probably) or even 2024. There will be a post-plague mini-boom, and the economic endorphins will last until the election
Starmer has a near-impossible task
The monetarists think the shit will hit the fan quite soon.
I don't. Why would it? All the major economies of the world are in agreement, the markets will be whipped into shape, psychologically. Let the boom roll, it benefits everyone
I don't see any powerful chastening influence, China will be just as keen on all this as America and Europe. Float all the boats
Money supply, inflation, interest rates to control, debt servicing problems.
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
Nonsense. He sounded fine. You're just saying this to bring yourself in line with the polls. It's called chasing shrewdness when you're not. When the polls change you'll forget this comment. I won't though. I forget nothing. Call me Nellie the Elephant. Well, no, don't - I'd hate that - but you get the point.
What about if you’d said it from day one?
Ah ha. Different.
But let's see how it looks a year from now.
People keep saying that - as they've done year in and year out...
The nation in mourning is quite a moment and the generous tributes to Prince Philip and the Queen seem genuine, heartfelt and not only from here in the UK, but worldwide
I can just recall the Queens wedding in November 1947 but remember the death of her Father and the news that she became Queen, actually in Kenya. Also the coronation itself, as we had most of our neighbours in to watch on our very small black and white tv all day, with our former blackout curtains drawn and my Grandmother standing to attention whenever the national anthem was played, and even when it was not, bless her
I have largely been a republican for most of my life but of recent times have recognised the Queen, indeed have become very fond of her, and also the role Philip has played alongside her
I am so sorry for the queen who must be devastated.
I know my wife and I have been together for near 60 years since we first met and a lifetime of love and companionship lost would devastate the surviving one of us
I know some are unsympathetic and upset at the interruption to politics and their daily TV schedule, but there are times when events occur that are historic and this is one such event which is quite rare in our daily lives
I would hope it will bring our Country together and we could see more kindness and less conflict, but no doubt that is a vain hope, not least since Turkey has given Joe permission to send two US warships into the Black Sea following Russia's troop build up in the Crimea
Blimey! Nicholas Witchell has hacked BigG.'s PB account!
Has he been married near 60 years
No - these are my words and expressed as someone who has been in a lifetime marriage and feels for the Queen and her loss
We can all feel for a 95 year old woman who has lost a life-time companion.
That does not mean that it is necessary to have the same programme on every BBC channel. One channel would have been quite enough. Marking an important occasion is one thing. But there is a fine line between that and a sort of emotional bullying of everyone into feeling things they do not feel. Diana's death was the worst example of that and, ironically, the Royal Family were at the receiving end.
I am sorry that Philip has died, not least because of the impact on his family. It would have been nice for him to have reached 100 years. It marks the end of an era. It reminds us that HMQ too may not be long for this world. But he had a long life, well-lived, and a peaceful death. And since he did not want a fuss it is unnecessary for the rest of us to go overboard or berate those who do not want to listen to the reminiscences of every single person who ever met him for 5 minutes.
Pretending to feelings we don't have is silly and, it seems to me, insensitive to those who genuinely do feel grief and a sense of loss.
I agree the coverage is OTT but it doesn't really bother me because I just don't watch it. I am, however, hoping that on PB it goes away quickly, since I spend far more time on PB than I do watching telly. This last bit being food for thought and possibly requiring corrective action.
I’m wondering how this prolonged Duke of E coverage will go down with different communities
eg What will the BAMEs make of it? Any thoughts?
Using "the BAMEs" in this way smacks of casual, dehumanizing racism. I won't answer the question unless reworded. And even then I probably won't.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend by using ‘the’. I will rephrase
What do you think BAMEs will make of it?
That is slightly better. But it still sounds "off" the way you're putting it.
Do you want me to show how it can be rectified? I don't mind. Not everyone has a feel for this sort of thing.
This is exactly what I want! I know you're very vigilant, informed and hyper-aware of the correct use of these terms, especially BAME. Indeed, you have told us you deem BAME to the "best, most inclusive term of all", so I am eager to be schooled
How should I use it?
It's actually quite easy. You should have asked the question something like this -
"How do you think the wall to wall coverage of 'RIP Philip' would have gone down with our various BAME communities?"
That's fine. It does not have the "off" feel that your version did. All with an ear for language will see this. Language in general, I mean. This has nothing to do with being PC or any of that.
So, great, I can answer it now, and I guess I may as well. Get this dealt with and into the out tray. Here goes -
"What an odd question. I have absolutely no idea."
(No charge)
Well I don't like the term BAME and this is the first and last time I ever use it. As for "BAME communities" - what are they? You mean figuratively, I guess, but why lump individuals into groups anyway?
Entirely up to you. I see neither virtue nor vice in that. But on the general point - sometimes grouping people by various id metrics (inc ethnicity) - if you avoid that in all circumstances you are rather hampering your ability to discuss quite a few things, I'd have thought.
Eg, subject: The educational attainment of black, working class boys.
How can we frame that without "black" and "working class" and "boys"?
For me, using these "lumping" terms is not saying that everyone is not an individual. We just need these terms sometimes to talk properly about what we want to talk about.
Firstly I'd say skin-colour is different to the other two examples you give and secondly it doesn't justify the addition of "communities".
If I was Asian-British, for example, I'd object to being referred to as BAME and I'd be even more annoyed that I was being fingered as being part of an imaginary community.
Community can be misleading, I agree. Usually "people" works just as well.
But on the main point, I don't really get you.
Is skin colour is so sensitive that it cannot be referred to at all iyo?
If so, different example, how are we to talk about the distrust of the metropolitan police felt in the black comm... by so many black people in London?
I don't think skin colour is sensitive at all - I think it's irrelevant.
Don't get you at all. So, back to my question then -
How are we to discuss the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London if we first pronounce that skin colour is irrelevant?
Refer to the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London.
Not by the fictional "black community" of London.
Exactly, Philip. Nice one. But per Stocky we shouldn't say "black". Cos it's irrelevant.
That's what I'm probing.
It is pretty irrelevant, unless you're a racist most of the time.
You should say black if you mean black, but if you say "black community" and lump all blacks together as some black whole then you are racist.
A lot of people on your side of politics never hesitated to point out the hurt and suffering that Corbyn and some others were causing to the Jewish community. I assume you'd have the same objection to lumping Jewish people together into a 'community'.
Of course I would, lumping all Jewish people together into a 'community' is antisemitic.
Corbyn was causing hurt to Jews.
You wouldn't be lumping all Jews together there, Philip, would you?
Just to say, the notion of "lumping all Jewish people together into a community" is actually an idea with a lot of support in traditional Jewish thought. Although clearly assuming everyone thinks the same and agrees on everything is provably wrong.
Anyway, it's a completely different situation to assuming all Black people are one community, as there is much greater cultural and ethnic diversity between (for example) Nigerians and Jamaicans.
Well Philip says referring to the Jewish community is slam dunk antisemitism.
So perhaps have a gentle word when you see him next.
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
He is a 'someone reasonably sensible for the time being' leader who knows full well he won't become PM. His party know this too.
The problem for Labour, actually one of many, is who will?
I think this underestimates the chance of SKS becoming PM, though I agree the chance is small. But, as long as he is leader, SKS becomes PM, for all statistically practical purposes, on the single contingency that the Tories fail to get enough seats to form a government. And while Labour winning x zillion seats to win outright has a negligible chance, the chances of the Tories not winning c320+ seats is real. SKS should not be written off.
If he has a different strategy from that one, call it the 'boring limpet' approach - I give it 25-30% chance - he certainly hasn't told us what it is.
His chance is effectively contingent not on him succeeding, he is too surrounded by nonentities for that, but the Tories wheels coming off. It may not look likely but I bet Boris thinks about it every day.
It's the Economy, innit?
As the pandemic finally recedes (God willing) we are left with the economy, which, to be honest, I expected to be in a far worse position than it is.
Inasmuch as I expected anything, economically, at the beginning of Covid I thought we were looking at a Great Depression, 15% unemployment, 10% permanent loss of output, just horrific. Instead, governments have borrowed and stimulated their way out of the toilet, with Biden wading in with cool trillions. UK unemployment right now is 5%.
5%!
Yes it's kind of imaginary, but the major governments of the world - esp the hard-hit West - may have fucked up their Covid response, but they've done a pretty good job of avoiding economic disaster
The debt may, in the end, kill us, but that won't happen for a few years.
Ergo, the Tories should be fine if they go to the people in 2023 (probably) or even 2024. There will be a post-plague mini-boom, and the economic endorphins will last until the election
Starmer has a near-impossible task
The monetarists think the shit will hit the fan quite soon.
I don't. Why would it? All the major economies of the world are in agreement, the markets will be whipped into shape, psychologically. Let the boom roll, it benefits everyone
I don't see any powerful chastening influence, China will be just as keen on all this as America and Europe. Float all the boats
Money supply, inflation, interest rates to control, debt servicing problems.
Again - all have been the case since Brexit........ Just smacks of waiting for something to turn up. No sign of any strategy. Little sign of inspirational leadership or a killer policy.
The nation in mourning is quite a moment and the generous tributes to Prince Philip and the Queen seem genuine, heartfelt and not only from here in the UK, but worldwide
I can just recall the Queens wedding in November 1947 but remember the death of her Father and the news that she became Queen, actually in Kenya. Also the coronation itself, as we had most of our neighbours in to watch on our very small black and white tv all day, with our former blackout curtains drawn and my Grandmother standing to attention whenever the national anthem was played, and even when it was not, bless her
I have largely been a republican for most of my life but of recent times have recognised the Queen, indeed have become very fond of her, and also the role Philip has played alongside her
I am so sorry for the queen who must be devastated.
I know my wife and I have been together for near 60 years since we first met and a lifetime of love and companionship lost would devastate the surviving one of us
I know some are unsympathetic and upset at the interruption to politics and their daily TV schedule, but there are times when events occur that are historic and this is one such event which is quite rare in our daily lives
I would hope it will bring our Country together and we could see more kindness and less conflict, but no doubt that is a vain hope, not least since Turkey has given Joe permission to send two US warships into the Black Sea following Russia's troop build up in the Crimea
Blimey! Nicholas Witchell has hacked BigG.'s PB account!
Has he been married near 60 years
No - these are my words and expressed as someone who has been in a lifetime marriage and feels for the Queen and her loss
We can all feel for a 95 year old woman who has lost a life-time companion.
That does not mean that it is necessary to have the same programme on every BBC channel. One channel would have been quite enough. Marking an important occasion is one thing. But there is a fine line between that and a sort of emotional bullying of everyone into feeling things they do not feel. Diana's death was the worst example of that and, ironically, the Royal Family were at the receiving end.
I am sorry that Philip has died, not least because of the impact on his family. It would have been nice for him to have reached 100 years. It marks the end of an era. It reminds us that HMQ too may not be long for this world. But he had a long life, well-lived, and a peaceful death. And since he did not want a fuss it is unnecessary for the rest of us to go overboard or berate those who do not want to listen to the reminiscences of every single person who ever met him for 5 minutes.
Pretending to feelings we don't have is silly and, it seems to me, insensitive to those who genuinely do feel grief and a sense of loss.
I agree the coverage is OTT but it doesn't really bother me because I just don't watch it. I am, however, hoping that on PB it goes away quickly, since I spend far more time on PB than I do watching telly. This last bit being food for thought and possibly requiring corrective action.
I’m wondering how this prolonged Duke of E coverage will go down with different communities
eg What will the BAMEs make of it? Any thoughts?
Using "the BAMEs" in this way smacks of casual, dehumanizing racism. I won't answer the question unless reworded. And even then I probably won't.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend by using ‘the’. I will rephrase
What do you think BAMEs will make of it?
That is slightly better. But it still sounds "off" the way you're putting it.
Do you want me to show how it can be rectified? I don't mind. Not everyone has a feel for this sort of thing.
This is exactly what I want! I know you're very vigilant, informed and hyper-aware of the correct use of these terms, especially BAME. Indeed, you have told us you deem BAME to the "best, most inclusive term of all", so I am eager to be schooled
How should I use it?
It's actually quite easy. You should have asked the question something like this -
"How do you think the wall to wall coverage of 'RIP Philip' would have gone down with our various BAME communities?"
That's fine. It does not have the "off" feel that your version did. All with an ear for language will see this. Language in general, I mean. This has nothing to do with being PC or any of that.
So, great, I can answer it now, and I guess I may as well. Get this dealt with and into the out tray. Here goes -
"What an odd question. I have absolutely no idea."
(No charge)
Well I don't like the term BAME and this is the first and last time I ever use it. As for "BAME communities" - what are they? You mean figuratively, I guess, but why lump individuals into groups anyway?
Entirely up to you. I see neither virtue nor vice in that. But on the general point - sometimes grouping people by various id metrics (inc ethnicity) - if you avoid that in all circumstances you are rather hampering your ability to discuss quite a few things, I'd have thought.
Eg, subject: The educational attainment of black, working class boys.
How can we frame that without "black" and "working class" and "boys"?
For me, using these "lumping" terms is not saying that everyone is not an individual. We just need these terms sometimes to talk properly about what we want to talk about.
Firstly I'd say skin-colour is different to the other two examples you give and secondly it doesn't justify the addition of "communities".
If I was Asian-British, for example, I'd object to being referred to as BAME and I'd be even more annoyed that I was being fingered as being part of an imaginary community.
Community can be misleading, I agree. Usually "people" works just as well.
But on the main point, I don't really get you.
Is skin colour is so sensitive that it cannot be referred to at all iyo?
If so, different example, how are we to talk about the distrust of the metropolitan police felt in the black comm... by so many black people in London?
I don't think skin colour is sensitive at all - I think it's irrelevant.
Don't get you at all. So, back to my question then -
How are we to discuss the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London if we first pronounce that skin colour is irrelevant?
Refer to the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London.
Not by the fictional "black community" of London.
Exactly, Philip. Nice one. But per Stocky we shouldn't say "black". Cos it's irrelevant.
That's what I'm probing.
It is pretty irrelevant, unless you're a racist most of the time.
You should say black if you mean black, but if you say "black community" and lump all blacks together as some black whole then you are racist.
A lot of people on your side of politics never hesitated to point out the hurt and suffering that Corbyn and some others were causing to the Jewish community. I assume you'd have the same objection to lumping Jewish people together into a 'community'.
Of course I would, lumping all Jewish people together into a 'community' is antisemitic.
Corbyn was causing hurt to Jews.
You wouldn't be lumping all Jews together there, Philip, would you?
Taken the 8th to the 9th - so at least some of it would have been pre-announcement.
If the conservatives are at 45% and not doing well in Scotland where are they in England and Wales
This was what I said the other day! Especially as Labour have added a few points in Scotland.
That would be true if Labour had surged to circa 30% in Scotland - but current polling has the party in the 18% - 20% range there - ie little changed from the 18.6% received in December 2019. Across GB as a whole , Labour appears to be on 36% compared with 33% at the GE.
And we are about to get our arses spanked in the locals.
The other things the national polling fails to tell clearly is how the votes are spread across the country - we know Labour are doing wel in London where the Tories are down a little, but we don't know that much about the Midlands or the NE. However, there have been some reports on here suggesting that the Mayorals in Teesside are looking bad for Labour. I've not heard anything about Andy Street for examp,e though in the Midlands mayoral. Wales could be interesting too.
Actually I've not heard anything about Andy Street either. Has he been good/bad/meh? For such a large region he's been anonymous. I realise I don't live there or anything...
Taken the 8th to the 9th - so at least some of it would have been pre-announcement.
If the conservatives are at 45% and not doing well in Scotland where are they in England and Wales
This was what I said the other day! Especially as Labour have added a few points in Scotland.
That would be true if Labour had surged to circa 30% in Scotland - but current polling has the party in the 18% - 20% range there - ie little changed from the 18.6% received in December 2019. Across GB as a whole , Labour appears to be on 36% compared with 33% at the GE.
And we are about to get our arses spanked in the locals.
Taken the 8th to the 9th - so at least some of it would have been pre-announcement.
If the conservatives are at 45% and not doing well in Scotland where are they in England and Wales
This was what I said the other day! Especially as Labour have added a few points in Scotland.
That would be true if Labour had surged to circa 30% in Scotland - but current polling has the party in the 18% - 20% range there - ie little changed from the 18.6% received in December 2019. Across GB as a whole , Labour appears to be on 36% compared with 33% at the GE.
And we are about to get our arses spanked in the locals.
Even this poll implies net gains compared with 2017 - but losses in seats last contested in 2016.
The nation in mourning is quite a moment and the generous tributes to Prince Philip and the Queen seem genuine, heartfelt and not only from here in the UK, but worldwide
I can just recall the Queens wedding in November 1947 but remember the death of her Father and the news that she became Queen, actually in Kenya. Also the coronation itself, as we had most of our neighbours in to watch on our very small black and white tv all day, with our former blackout curtains drawn and my Grandmother standing to attention whenever the national anthem was played, and even when it was not, bless her
I have largely been a republican for most of my life but of recent times have recognised the Queen, indeed have become very fond of her, and also the role Philip has played alongside her
I am so sorry for the queen who must be devastated.
I know my wife and I have been together for near 60 years since we first met and a lifetime of love and companionship lost would devastate the surviving one of us
I know some are unsympathetic and upset at the interruption to politics and their daily TV schedule, but there are times when events occur that are historic and this is one such event which is quite rare in our daily lives
I would hope it will bring our Country together and we could see more kindness and less conflict, but no doubt that is a vain hope, not least since Turkey has given Joe permission to send two US warships into the Black Sea following Russia's troop build up in the Crimea
Blimey! Nicholas Witchell has hacked BigG.'s PB account!
Has he been married near 60 years
No - these are my words and expressed as someone who has been in a lifetime marriage and feels for the Queen and her loss
We can all feel for a 95 year old woman who has lost a life-time companion.
That does not mean that it is necessary to have the same programme on every BBC channel. One channel would have been quite enough. Marking an important occasion is one thing. But there is a fine line between that and a sort of emotional bullying of everyone into feeling things they do not feel. Diana's death was the worst example of that and, ironically, the Royal Family were at the receiving end.
I am sorry that Philip has died, not least because of the impact on his family. It would have been nice for him to have reached 100 years. It marks the end of an era. It reminds us that HMQ too may not be long for this world. But he had a long life, well-lived, and a peaceful death. And since he did not want a fuss it is unnecessary for the rest of us to go overboard or berate those who do not want to listen to the reminiscences of every single person who ever met him for 5 minutes.
Pretending to feelings we don't have is silly and, it seems to me, insensitive to those who genuinely do feel grief and a sense of loss.
I agree the coverage is OTT but it doesn't really bother me because I just don't watch it. I am, however, hoping that on PB it goes away quickly, since I spend far more time on PB than I do watching telly. This last bit being food for thought and possibly requiring corrective action.
I’m wondering how this prolonged Duke of E coverage will go down with different communities
eg What will the BAMEs make of it? Any thoughts?
Using "the BAMEs" in this way smacks of casual, dehumanizing racism. I won't answer the question unless reworded. And even then I probably won't.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend by using ‘the’. I will rephrase
What do you think BAMEs will make of it?
That is slightly better. But it still sounds "off" the way you're putting it.
Do you want me to show how it can be rectified? I don't mind. Not everyone has a feel for this sort of thing.
This is exactly what I want! I know you're very vigilant, informed and hyper-aware of the correct use of these terms, especially BAME. Indeed, you have told us you deem BAME to the "best, most inclusive term of all", so I am eager to be schooled
How should I use it?
It's actually quite easy. You should have asked the question something like this -
"How do you think the wall to wall coverage of 'RIP Philip' would have gone down with our various BAME communities?"
That's fine. It does not have the "off" feel that your version did. All with an ear for language will see this. Language in general, I mean. This has nothing to do with being PC or any of that.
So, great, I can answer it now, and I guess I may as well. Get this dealt with and into the out tray. Here goes -
"What an odd question. I have absolutely no idea."
(No charge)
Well I don't like the term BAME and this is the first and last time I ever use it. As for "BAME communities" - what are they? You mean figuratively, I guess, but why lump individuals into groups anyway?
Entirely up to you. I see neither virtue nor vice in that. But on the general point - sometimes grouping people by various id metrics (inc ethnicity) - if you avoid that in all circumstances you are rather hampering your ability to discuss quite a few things, I'd have thought.
Eg, subject: The educational attainment of black, working class boys.
How can we frame that without "black" and "working class" and "boys"?
For me, using these "lumping" terms is not saying that everyone is not an individual. We just need these terms sometimes to talk properly about what we want to talk about.
Firstly I'd say skin-colour is different to the other two examples you give and secondly it doesn't justify the addition of "communities".
If I was Asian-British, for example, I'd object to being referred to as BAME and I'd be even more annoyed that I was being fingered as being part of an imaginary community.
Community can be misleading, I agree. Usually "people" works just as well.
But on the main point, I don't really get you.
Is skin colour is so sensitive that it cannot be referred to at all iyo?
If so, different example, how are we to talk about the distrust of the metropolitan police felt in the black comm... by so many black people in London?
I don't think skin colour is sensitive at all - I think it's irrelevant.
Don't get you at all. So, back to my question then -
How are we to discuss the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London if we first pronounce that skin colour is irrelevant?
Refer to the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London.
Not by the fictional "black community" of London.
Exactly, Philip. Nice one. But per Stocky we shouldn't say "black". Cos it's irrelevant.
That's what I'm probing.
It is pretty irrelevant, unless you're a racist most of the time.
You should say black if you mean black, but if you say "black community" and lump all blacks together as some black whole then you are racist.
A lot of people on your side of politics never hesitated to point out the hurt and suffering that Corbyn and some others were causing to the Jewish community. I assume you'd have the same objection to lumping Jewish people together into a 'community'.
Of course I would, lumping all Jewish people together into a 'community' is antisemitic.
Corbyn was causing hurt to Jews.
You wouldn't be lumping all Jews together there, Philip, would you?
Just to say, the notion of "lumping all Jewish people together into a community" is actually an idea with a lot of support in traditional Jewish thought. Although clearly assuming everyone thinks the same and agrees on everything is provably wrong.
Anyway, it's a completely different situation to assuming all Black people are one community, as there is much greater cultural and ethnic diversity between (for example) Nigerians and Jamaicans.
Well Philip says referring to the Jewish community is slam dunk antisemitism.
So perhaps have a gentle word when you see him next.
If I have something to say I'm more than capable of saying it myself.
There was nothing wrong with what Endillon said. He didn't refer to all Jews himself, he referred to traditional Jewish thought. And he was right.
The world has moved on from traditional thoughts though, which is why it is insane to lump all together. Regardless of what traditional thinking might have entailed.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
When the aliens land, they still should only devote BBC1 to covering it. There will still be people expecting to see Masterchef on BBC2.
You've done a funny!
I'm impressed.
If aliens did land, personally I wouldn't be gawping at the TV all day about it. It's not really my thing. I can appreciate it would be very momentous, but I'd become apprised of the salient facts via PB and people I know in due course. It's very 1960's to be glued to the screen waiting for someone to tell you what to think.
That's why I don't really mind the wall to wall Prince Phillip, because I don't really watch it. I am a Royalist and I am interested in his life, but no more interested than I was before he died.
Wouldn’t you want to know what they look like?
Scott and Paste would be along with his Tweets with the full colour images no doubt.
Taken the 8th to the 9th - so at least some of it would have been pre-announcement.
If the conservatives are at 45% and not doing well in Scotland where are they in England and Wales
This was what I said the other day! Especially as Labour have added a few points in Scotland.
That would be true if Labour had surged to circa 30% in Scotland - but current polling has the party in the 18% - 20% range there - ie little changed from the 18.6% received in December 2019. Across GB as a whole , Labour appears to be on 36% compared with 33% at the GE.
And we are about to get our arses spanked in the locals.
The other things the national polling fails to tell clearly is how the votes are spread across the country - we know Labour are doing wel in London where the Tories are down a little, but we don't know that much about the Midlands or the NE. However, there have been some reports on here suggesting that the Mayorals in Teesside are looking bad for Labour. I've not heard anything about Andy Street for examp,e though in the Midlands mayoral. Wales could be interesting too.
Actually I've not heard anything about Andy Street either. Has he been good/bad/meh? For such a large region he's been anonymous. I realise I don't live there or anything...
The former boss of John Lewis sat watching the Birmingham John Lewis shut down isn't a good look.
Mind, that clown on Teesside seems to have gotten away with buying an airport with no planes, so Street may well get a second term.
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
Sounds like the bloke in the Tunes advert from the 80s - “a return to Dottingum” I think it was
Very Milibandesque in his manner as well.
God, we really are the same (aged) generation, aren't we?
I remember that advert distinctly
The other day I genuinely couldn’t remember how old I was, that felt like a sign of ageing
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
When the aliens land, they still should only devote BBC1 to covering it. There will still be people expecting to see Masterchef on BBC2.
You've done a funny!
I'm impressed.
If aliens did land, personally I wouldn't be gawping at the TV all day about it. It's not really my thing. I can appreciate it would be very momentous, but I'd become apprised of the salient facts via PB and people I know in due course. It's very 1960's to be glued to the screen waiting for someone to tell you what to think.
That's why I don't really mind the wall to wall Prince Phillip, because I don't really watch it. I am a Royalist and I am interested in his life, but no more interested than I was before he died.
Wouldn’t you want to know what they look like?
Scott and Paste would be along with his Tweets with the full colour images no doubt.
I think Scott and Paste is in mourning more than ardent royalists, over the demise of Twitter embeds.
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
He is a 'someone reasonably sensible for the time being' leader who knows full well he won't become PM. His party know this too.
The problem for Labour, actually one of many, is who will?
I think this underestimates the chance of SKS becoming PM, though I agree the chance is small. But, as long as he is leader, SKS becomes PM, for all statistically practical purposes, on the single contingency that the Tories fail to get enough seats to form a government. And while Labour winning x zillion seats to win outright has a negligible chance, the chances of the Tories not winning c320+ seats is real. SKS should not be written off.
If he has a different strategy from that one, call it the 'boring limpet' approach - I give it 25-30% chance - he certainly hasn't told us what it is.
His chance is effectively contingent not on him succeeding, he is too surrounded by nonentities for that, but the Tories wheels coming off. It may not look likely but I bet Boris thinks about it every day.
Essentially the right take.
Labour majority, forget it. But Starmer PM in hung parliament? Very possible indeed.
Can be backed at over 6 right now and that's good. Because as soon as it dawns that the next GE will be Johnson v Starmer - ie neither will be replaced before then - that price will be 3.5 max.
Taken the 8th to the 9th - so at least some of it would have been pre-announcement.
If the conservatives are at 45% and not doing well in Scotland where are they in England and Wales
This was what I said the other day! Especially as Labour have added a few points in Scotland.
That would be true if Labour had surged to circa 30% in Scotland - but current polling has the party in the 18% - 20% range there - ie little changed from the 18.6% received in December 2019. Across GB as a whole , Labour appears to be on 36% compared with 33% at the GE.
And we are about to get our arses spanked in the locals.
Taken the 8th to the 9th - so at least some of it would have been pre-announcement.
If the conservatives are at 45% and not doing well in Scotland where are they in England and Wales
This was what I said the other day! Especially as Labour have added a few points in Scotland.
That would be true if Labour had surged to circa 30% in Scotland - but current polling has the party in the 18% - 20% range there - ie little changed from the 18.6% received in December 2019. Across GB as a whole , Labour appears to be on 36% compared with 33% at the GE.
And we are about to get our arses spanked in the locals.
Even this poll implies net gains compared with 2017 - but losses in seats last contested in 2016.
Gains against a really bad result is still a bad result. Look at the national vote share, not the change in seats.
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
Sounds like the bloke in the Tunes advert from the 80s - “a return to Dottingum” I think it was
Very Milibandesque in his manner as well.
God, we really are the same (aged) generation, aren't we?
I remember that advert distinctly
The other day I genuinely couldn’t remember how old I was, that felt like a sign of ageing
You're 47.
In December!
Yes. Spookiness of me.
The precise prime of life, in fact, for a man. Some maturity, intellectual and emotional, yet still with good physical capabilities.
Passes quickly though. Passes in the blink of an eye.
Taken the 8th to the 9th - so at least some of it would have been pre-announcement.
If the conservatives are at 45% and not doing well in Scotland where are they in England and Wales
This was what I said the other day! Especially as Labour have added a few points in Scotland.
That would be true if Labour had surged to circa 30% in Scotland - but current polling has the party in the 18% - 20% range there - ie little changed from the 18.6% received in December 2019. Across GB as a whole , Labour appears to be on 36% compared with 33% at the GE.
And we are about to get our arses spanked in the locals.
The other things the national polling fails to tell clearly is how the votes are spread across the country - we know Labour are doing wel in London where the Tories are down a little, but we don't know that much about the Midlands or the NE. However, there have been some reports on here suggesting that the Mayorals in Teesside are looking bad for Labour. I've not heard anything about Andy Street for examp,e though in the Midlands mayoral. Wales could be interesting too.
Actually I've not heard anything about Andy Street either. Has he been good/bad/meh? For such a large region he's been anonymous. I realise I don't live there or anything...
The former boss of John Lewis sat watching the Birmingham John Lewis shut down isn't a good look.
Mind, that clown on Teesside seems to have gotten away with buying an airport with no planes, so Street may well get a second term.
My 'on the ground' reports from my old home town say that Street is seen as being good at getting things done and there is confusion as to whether the Labour guy is one of Corbyn's lot. Liam Byrne most certainly isn't, but it shows that the Corbyn years still cast a shadow.
The nation in mourning is quite a moment and the generous tributes to Prince Philip and the Queen seem genuine, heartfelt and not only from here in the UK, but worldwide
I can just recall the Queens wedding in November 1947 but remember the death of her Father and the news that she became Queen, actually in Kenya. Also the coronation itself, as we had most of our neighbours in to watch on our very small black and white tv all day, with our former blackout curtains drawn and my Grandmother standing to attention whenever the national anthem was played, and even when it was not, bless her
I have largely been a republican for most of my life but of recent times have recognised the Queen, indeed have become very fond of her, and also the role Philip has played alongside her
I am so sorry for the queen who must be devastated.
I know my wife and I have been together for near 60 years since we first met and a lifetime of love and companionship lost would devastate the surviving one of us
I know some are unsympathetic and upset at the interruption to politics and their daily TV schedule, but there are times when events occur that are historic and this is one such event which is quite rare in our daily lives
I would hope it will bring our Country together and we could see more kindness and less conflict, but no doubt that is a vain hope, not least since Turkey has given Joe permission to send two US warships into the Black Sea following Russia's troop build up in the Crimea
Blimey! Nicholas Witchell has hacked BigG.'s PB account!
Has he been married near 60 years
No - these are my words and expressed as someone who has been in a lifetime marriage and feels for the Queen and her loss
We can all feel for a 95 year old woman who has lost a life-time companion.
That does not mean that it is necessary to have the same programme on every BBC channel. One channel would have been quite enough. Marking an important occasion is one thing. But there is a fine line between that and a sort of emotional bullying of everyone into feeling things they do not feel. Diana's death was the worst example of that and, ironically, the Royal Family were at the receiving end.
I am sorry that Philip has died, not least because of the impact on his family. It would have been nice for him to have reached 100 years. It marks the end of an era. It reminds us that HMQ too may not be long for this world. But he had a long life, well-lived, and a peaceful death. And since he did not want a fuss it is unnecessary for the rest of us to go overboard or berate those who do not want to listen to the reminiscences of every single person who ever met him for 5 minutes.
Pretending to feelings we don't have is silly and, it seems to me, insensitive to those who genuinely do feel grief and a sense of loss.
I agree the coverage is OTT but it doesn't really bother me because I just don't watch it. I am, however, hoping that on PB it goes away quickly, since I spend far more time on PB than I do watching telly. This last bit being food for thought and possibly requiring corrective action.
I’m wondering how this prolonged Duke of E coverage will go down with different communities
eg What will the BAMEs make of it? Any thoughts?
Using "the BAMEs" in this way smacks of casual, dehumanizing racism. I won't answer the question unless reworded. And even then I probably won't.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend by using ‘the’. I will rephrase
What do you think BAMEs will make of it?
That is slightly better. But it still sounds "off" the way you're putting it.
Do you want me to show how it can be rectified? I don't mind. Not everyone has a feel for this sort of thing.
This is exactly what I want! I know you're very vigilant, informed and hyper-aware of the correct use of these terms, especially BAME. Indeed, you have told us you deem BAME to the "best, most inclusive term of all", so I am eager to be schooled
How should I use it?
It's actually quite easy. You should have asked the question something like this -
"How do you think the wall to wall coverage of 'RIP Philip' would have gone down with our various BAME communities?"
That's fine. It does not have the "off" feel that your version did. All with an ear for language will see this. Language in general, I mean. This has nothing to do with being PC or any of that.
So, great, I can answer it now, and I guess I may as well. Get this dealt with and into the out tray. Here goes -
"What an odd question. I have absolutely no idea."
(No charge)
Well I don't like the term BAME and this is the first and last time I ever use it. As for "BAME communities" - what are they? You mean figuratively, I guess, but why lump individuals into groups anyway?
Entirely up to you. I see neither virtue nor vice in that. But on the general point - sometimes grouping people by various id metrics (inc ethnicity) - if you avoid that in all circumstances you are rather hampering your ability to discuss quite a few things, I'd have thought.
Eg, subject: The educational attainment of black, working class boys.
How can we frame that without "black" and "working class" and "boys"?
For me, using these "lumping" terms is not saying that everyone is not an individual. We just need these terms sometimes to talk properly about what we want to talk about.
Firstly I'd say skin-colour is different to the other two examples you give and secondly it doesn't justify the addition of "communities".
If I was Asian-British, for example, I'd object to being referred to as BAME and I'd be even more annoyed that I was being fingered as being part of an imaginary community.
Community can be misleading, I agree. Usually "people" works just as well.
But on the main point, I don't really get you.
Is skin colour is so sensitive that it cannot be referred to at all iyo?
If so, different example, how are we to talk about the distrust of the metropolitan police felt in the black comm... by so many black people in London?
I don't think skin colour is sensitive at all - I think it's irrelevant.
Don't get you at all. So, back to my question then -
How are we to discuss the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London if we first pronounce that skin colour is irrelevant?
Refer to the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London.
Not by the fictional "black community" of London.
Exactly, Philip. Nice one. But per Stocky we shouldn't say "black". Cos it's irrelevant.
That's what I'm probing.
It is pretty irrelevant, unless you're a racist most of the time.
You should say black if you mean black, but if you say "black community" and lump all blacks together as some black whole then you are racist.
A lot of people on your side of politics never hesitated to point out the hurt and suffering that Corbyn and some others were causing to the Jewish community. I assume you'd have the same objection to lumping Jewish people together into a 'community'.
Of course I would, lumping all Jewish people together into a 'community' is antisemitic.
Corbyn was causing hurt to Jews.
You wouldn't be lumping all Jews together there, Philip, would you?
Just to say, the notion of "lumping all Jewish people together into a community" is actually an idea with a lot of support in traditional Jewish thought. Although clearly assuming everyone thinks the same and agrees on everything is provably wrong.
Anyway, it's a completely different situation to assuming all Black people are one community, as there is much greater cultural and ethnic diversity between (for example) Nigerians and Jamaicans.
Well Philip says referring to the Jewish community is slam dunk antisemitism.
So perhaps have a gentle word when you see him next.
If I have something to say I'm more than capable of saying it myself.
There was nothing wrong with what Endillon said. He didn't refer to all Jews himself, he referred to traditional Jewish thought. And he was right.
The world has moved on from traditional thoughts though, which is why it is insane to lump all together. Regardless of what traditional thinking might have entailed.
I don't think Endillion is agreeing with you that referring to the Jewish community damns a person as an antisemite.
But ask him. He's capable of speaking for himself too, I'm sure.
As for you, perhaps you can explain why "Corbyn offended the Jewish community" is iyo an antisemitic statement but your alternative of "Corbyn offended Jews" (rather than many Jews or most Jews) is absolutely aye okay.
The nation in mourning is quite a moment and the generous tributes to Prince Philip and the Queen seem genuine, heartfelt and not only from here in the UK, but worldwide
I can just recall the Queens wedding in November 1947 but remember the death of her Father and the news that she became Queen, actually in Kenya. Also the coronation itself, as we had most of our neighbours in to watch on our very small black and white tv all day, with our former blackout curtains drawn and my Grandmother standing to attention whenever the national anthem was played, and even when it was not, bless her
I have largely been a republican for most of my life but of recent times have recognised the Queen, indeed have become very fond of her, and also the role Philip has played alongside her
I am so sorry for the queen who must be devastated.
I know my wife and I have been together for near 60 years since we first met and a lifetime of love and companionship lost would devastate the surviving one of us
I know some are unsympathetic and upset at the interruption to politics and their daily TV schedule, but there are times when events occur that are historic and this is one such event which is quite rare in our daily lives
I would hope it will bring our Country together and we could see more kindness and less conflict, but no doubt that is a vain hope, not least since Turkey has given Joe permission to send two US warships into the Black Sea following Russia's troop build up in the Crimea
Blimey! Nicholas Witchell has hacked BigG.'s PB account!
Has he been married near 60 years
No - these are my words and expressed as someone who has been in a lifetime marriage and feels for the Queen and her loss
We can all feel for a 95 year old woman who has lost a life-time companion.
That does not mean that it is necessary to have the same programme on every BBC channel. One channel would have been quite enough. Marking an important occasion is one thing. But there is a fine line between that and a sort of emotional bullying of everyone into feeling things they do not feel. Diana's death was the worst example of that and, ironically, the Royal Family were at the receiving end.
I am sorry that Philip has died, not least because of the impact on his family. It would have been nice for him to have reached 100 years. It marks the end of an era. It reminds us that HMQ too may not be long for this world. But he had a long life, well-lived, and a peaceful death. And since he did not want a fuss it is unnecessary for the rest of us to go overboard or berate those who do not want to listen to the reminiscences of every single person who ever met him for 5 minutes.
Pretending to feelings we don't have is silly and, it seems to me, insensitive to those who genuinely do feel grief and a sense of loss.
I agree the coverage is OTT but it doesn't really bother me because I just don't watch it. I am, however, hoping that on PB it goes away quickly, since I spend far more time on PB than I do watching telly. This last bit being food for thought and possibly requiring corrective action.
I’m wondering how this prolonged Duke of E coverage will go down with different communities
eg What will the BAMEs make of it? Any thoughts?
Using "the BAMEs" in this way smacks of casual, dehumanizing racism. I won't answer the question unless reworded. And even then I probably won't.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend by using ‘the’. I will rephrase
What do you think BAMEs will make of it?
That is slightly better. But it still sounds "off" the way you're putting it.
Do you want me to show how it can be rectified? I don't mind. Not everyone has a feel for this sort of thing.
This is exactly what I want! I know you're very vigilant, informed and hyper-aware of the correct use of these terms, especially BAME. Indeed, you have told us you deem BAME to the "best, most inclusive term of all", so I am eager to be schooled
How should I use it?
It's actually quite easy. You should have asked the question something like this -
"How do you think the wall to wall coverage of 'RIP Philip' would have gone down with our various BAME communities?"
That's fine. It does not have the "off" feel that your version did. All with an ear for language will see this. Language in general, I mean. This has nothing to do with being PC or any of that.
So, great, I can answer it now, and I guess I may as well. Get this dealt with and into the out tray. Here goes -
"What an odd question. I have absolutely no idea."
(No charge)
Well I don't like the term BAME and this is the first and last time I ever use it. As for "BAME communities" - what are they? You mean figuratively, I guess, but why lump individuals into groups anyway?
Entirely up to you. I see neither virtue nor vice in that. But on the general point - sometimes grouping people by various id metrics (inc ethnicity) - if you avoid that in all circumstances you are rather hampering your ability to discuss quite a few things, I'd have thought.
Eg, subject: The educational attainment of black, working class boys.
How can we frame that without "black" and "working class" and "boys"?
For me, using these "lumping" terms is not saying that everyone is not an individual. We just need these terms sometimes to talk properly about what we want to talk about.
Firstly I'd say skin-colour is different to the other two examples you give and secondly it doesn't justify the addition of "communities".
If I was Asian-British, for example, I'd object to being referred to as BAME and I'd be even more annoyed that I was being fingered as being part of an imaginary community.
Community can be misleading, I agree. Usually "people" works just as well.
But on the main point, I don't really get you.
Is skin colour is so sensitive that it cannot be referred to at all iyo?
If so, different example, how are we to talk about the distrust of the metropolitan police felt in the black comm... by so many black people in London?
I don't think skin colour is sensitive at all - I think it's irrelevant.
Don't get you at all. So, back to my question then -
How are we to discuss the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London if we first pronounce that skin colour is irrelevant?
Refer to the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London.
Not by the fictional "black community" of London.
Exactly, Philip. Nice one. But per Stocky we shouldn't say "black". Cos it's irrelevant.
That's what I'm probing.
It is pretty irrelevant, unless you're a racist most of the time.
You should say black if you mean black, but if you say "black community" and lump all blacks together as some black whole then you are racist.
A lot of people on your side of politics never hesitated to point out the hurt and suffering that Corbyn and some others were causing to the Jewish community. I assume you'd have the same objection to lumping Jewish people together into a 'community'.
Of course I would, lumping all Jewish people together into a 'community' is antisemitic.
Corbyn was causing hurt to Jews.
You wouldn't be lumping all Jews together there, Philip, would you?
Just to say, the notion of "lumping all Jewish people together into a community" is actually an idea with a lot of support in traditional Jewish thought. Although clearly assuming everyone thinks the same and agrees on everything is provably wrong.
Anyway, it's a completely different situation to assuming all Black people are one community, as there is much greater cultural and ethnic diversity between (for example) Nigerians and Jamaicans.
Well Philip says referring to the Jewish community is slam dunk antisemitism.
So perhaps have a gentle word when you see him next.
If I have something to say I'm more than capable of saying it myself.
There was nothing wrong with what Endillon said. He didn't refer to all Jews himself, he referred to traditional Jewish thought. And he was right.
The world has moved on from traditional thoughts though, which is why it is insane to lump all together. Regardless of what traditional thinking might have entailed.
I don't think Endillion is agreeing with you that referring to the Jewish community damns a person as an antisemite.
But ask him. He's capable of speaking for himself too, I'm sure.
As for you, perhaps you can explain why "Corbyn offended the Jewish community" is iyo an antisemitic statement but your alternative of "Corbyn offended Jews" (rather than many Jews or most Jews) is absolutely aye okay.
??
Because one lumps Jews together into a community, the other refers to some Jews, not all. No adjective has been used, I didn't say many, most or all.
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
He is a 'someone reasonably sensible for the time being' leader who knows full well he won't become PM. His party know this too.
The problem for Labour, actually one of many, is who will?
I think this underestimates the chance of SKS becoming PM, though I agree the chance is small. But, as long as he is leader, SKS becomes PM, for all statistically practical purposes, on the single contingency that the Tories fail to get enough seats to form a government. And while Labour winning x zillion seats to win outright has a negligible chance, the chances of the Tories not winning c320+ seats is real. SKS should not be written off.
If he has a different strategy from that one, call it the 'boring limpet' approach - I give it 25-30% chance - he certainly hasn't told us what it is.
His chance is effectively contingent not on him succeeding, he is too surrounded by nonentities for that, but the Tories wheels coming off. It may not look likely but I bet Boris thinks about it every day.
It's the Economy, innit?
As the pandemic finally recedes (God willing) we are left with the economy, which, to be honest, I expected to be in a far worse position than it is.
Inasmuch as I expected anything, economically, at the beginning of Covid I thought we were looking at a Great Depression, 15% unemployment, 10% permanent loss of output, just horrific. Instead, governments have borrowed and stimulated their way out of the toilet, with Biden wading in with cool trillions. UK unemployment right now is 5%.
5%!
Yes it's kind of imaginary, but the major governments of the world - esp the hard-hit West - may have fucked up their Covid response, but they've done a pretty good job of avoiding economic disaster
The debt may, in the end, kill us, but that won't happen for a few years.
Ergo, the Tories should be fine if they go to the people in 2023 (probably) or even 2024. There will be a post-plague mini-boom, and the economic endorphins will last until the election
Starmer has a near-impossible task
The monetarists think the shit will hit the fan quite soon.
I don't. Why would it? All the major economies of the world are in agreement, the markets will be whipped into shape, psychologically. Let the boom roll, it benefits everyone
I don't see any powerful chastening influence, China will be just as keen on all this as America and Europe. Float all the boats
Money supply, inflation, interest rates to control, debt servicing problems.
Understood. I believe, however, they will take up to a decade to arrange their divisions, against the combined forces of every central bank on earth (and the self interest of dealers, bankers, traders, trillionaires, who all want a recovery ASAP)
The logic says you are right, in the end, but that will take a while
Also, sheer animal spirits. We have all been locked down. For a year. The animal within waits to be unleashed, that force will take some time to unwind. It will take the Tories to a probable victory in 23-24
The nation in mourning is quite a moment and the generous tributes to Prince Philip and the Queen seem genuine, heartfelt and not only from here in the UK, but worldwide
I can just recall the Queens wedding in November 1947 but remember the death of her Father and the news that she became Queen, actually in Kenya. Also the coronation itself, as we had most of our neighbours in to watch on our very small black and white tv all day, with our former blackout curtains drawn and my Grandmother standing to attention whenever the national anthem was played, and even when it was not, bless her
I have largely been a republican for most of my life but of recent times have recognised the Queen, indeed have become very fond of her, and also the role Philip has played alongside her
I am so sorry for the queen who must be devastated.
I know my wife and I have been together for near 60 years since we first met and a lifetime of love and companionship lost would devastate the surviving one of us
I know some are unsympathetic and upset at the interruption to politics and their daily TV schedule, but there are times when events occur that are historic and this is one such event which is quite rare in our daily lives
I would hope it will bring our Country together and we could see more kindness and less conflict, but no doubt that is a vain hope, not least since Turkey has given Joe permission to send two US warships into the Black Sea following Russia's troop build up in the Crimea
Blimey! Nicholas Witchell has hacked BigG.'s PB account!
Has he been married near 60 years
No - these are my words and expressed as someone who has been in a lifetime marriage and feels for the Queen and her loss
We can all feel for a 95 year old woman who has lost a life-time companion.
That does not mean that it is necessary to have the same programme on every BBC channel. One channel would have been quite enough. Marking an important occasion is one thing. But there is a fine line between that and a sort of emotional bullying of everyone into feeling things they do not feel. Diana's death was the worst example of that and, ironically, the Royal Family were at the receiving end.
I am sorry that Philip has died, not least because of the impact on his family. It would have been nice for him to have reached 100 years. It marks the end of an era. It reminds us that HMQ too may not be long for this world. But he had a long life, well-lived, and a peaceful death. And since he did not want a fuss it is unnecessary for the rest of us to go overboard or berate those who do not want to listen to the reminiscences of every single person who ever met him for 5 minutes.
Pretending to feelings we don't have is silly and, it seems to me, insensitive to those who genuinely do feel grief and a sense of loss.
I agree the coverage is OTT but it doesn't really bother me because I just don't watch it. I am, however, hoping that on PB it goes away quickly, since I spend far more time on PB than I do watching telly. This last bit being food for thought and possibly requiring corrective action.
I’m wondering how this prolonged Duke of E coverage will go down with different communities
eg What will the BAMEs make of it? Any thoughts?
Using "the BAMEs" in this way smacks of casual, dehumanizing racism. I won't answer the question unless reworded. And even then I probably won't.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend by using ‘the’. I will rephrase
What do you think BAMEs will make of it?
That is slightly better. But it still sounds "off" the way you're putting it.
Do you want me to show how it can be rectified? I don't mind. Not everyone has a feel for this sort of thing.
This is exactly what I want! I know you're very vigilant, informed and hyper-aware of the correct use of these terms, especially BAME. Indeed, you have told us you deem BAME to the "best, most inclusive term of all", so I am eager to be schooled
How should I use it?
It's actually quite easy. You should have asked the question something like this -
"How do you think the wall to wall coverage of 'RIP Philip' would have gone down with our various BAME communities?"
That's fine. It does not have the "off" feel that your version did. All with an ear for language will see this. Language in general, I mean. This has nothing to do with being PC or any of that.
So, great, I can answer it now, and I guess I may as well. Get this dealt with and into the out tray. Here goes -
"What an odd question. I have absolutely no idea."
(No charge)
Well I don't like the term BAME and this is the first and last time I ever use it. As for "BAME communities" - what are they? You mean figuratively, I guess, but why lump individuals into groups anyway?
Entirely up to you. I see neither virtue nor vice in that. But on the general point - sometimes grouping people by various id metrics (inc ethnicity) - if you avoid that in all circumstances you are rather hampering your ability to discuss quite a few things, I'd have thought.
Eg, subject: The educational attainment of black, working class boys.
How can we frame that without "black" and "working class" and "boys"?
For me, using these "lumping" terms is not saying that everyone is not an individual. We just need these terms sometimes to talk properly about what we want to talk about.
Firstly I'd say skin-colour is different to the other two examples you give and secondly it doesn't justify the addition of "communities".
If I was Asian-British, for example, I'd object to being referred to as BAME and I'd be even more annoyed that I was being fingered as being part of an imaginary community.
Community can be misleading, I agree. Usually "people" works just as well.
But on the main point, I don't really get you.
Is skin colour is so sensitive that it cannot be referred to at all iyo?
If so, different example, how are we to talk about the distrust of the metropolitan police felt in the black comm... by so many black people in London?
I don't think skin colour is sensitive at all - I think it's irrelevant.
Don't get you at all. So, back to my question then -
How are we to discuss the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London if we first pronounce that skin colour is irrelevant?
Refer to the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London.
Not by the fictional "black community" of London.
Exactly, Philip. Nice one. But per Stocky we shouldn't say "black". Cos it's irrelevant.
That's what I'm probing.
It is pretty irrelevant, unless you're a racist most of the time.
You should say black if you mean black, but if you say "black community" and lump all blacks together as some black whole then you are racist.
A lot of people on your side of politics never hesitated to point out the hurt and suffering that Corbyn and some others were causing to the Jewish community. I assume you'd have the same objection to lumping Jewish people together into a 'community'.
Of course I would, lumping all Jewish people together into a 'community' is antisemitic.
Corbyn was causing hurt to Jews.
You wouldn't be lumping all Jews together there, Philip, would you?
Just to say, the notion of "lumping all Jewish people together into a community" is actually an idea with a lot of support in traditional Jewish thought. Although clearly assuming everyone thinks the same and agrees on everything is provably wrong.
Anyway, it's a completely different situation to assuming all Black people are one community, as there is much greater cultural and ethnic diversity between (for example) Nigerians and Jamaicans.
Well Philip says referring to the Jewish community is slam dunk antisemitism.
So perhaps have a gentle word when you see him next.
If I have something to say I'm more than capable of saying it myself.
There was nothing wrong with what Endillon said. He didn't refer to all Jews himself, he referred to traditional Jewish thought. And he was right.
The world has moved on from traditional thoughts though, which is why it is insane to lump all together. Regardless of what traditional thinking might have entailed.
I don't think Endillion is agreeing with you that referring to the Jewish community damns a person as an antisemite.
But ask him. He's capable of speaking for himself too, I'm sure.
As for you, perhaps you can explain why "Corbyn offended the Jewish community" is iyo an antisemitic statement but your alternative of "Corbyn offended Jews" (rather than many Jews or most Jews) is absolutely aye okay.
??
Because one lumps Jews together into a community, the other refers to some Jews, not all. No adjective has been used, I didn't say many, most or all.
Ok, so maybe say "some Jews" instead of "Jews" then.
If you're going to police language you need to watch your own.
Comments
UNLESS the Queen decided she could have dropped Andrew for the occasion
Why "English", not "British"?
I've been reading a bit of D-Day history, essentially first hand accounts from German defenders of the Atlantic Wall this week, and I'd be interested to hear more on this.
Why do so few people understand the basics of risk?
I don't see any powerful chastening influence, China will be just as keen on all this as America and Europe. Float all the boats
But let's see how it looks a year from now.
So perhaps have a gentle word when you see him next.
Not all, some.
Has he been good/bad/meh?
For such a large region he's been anonymous. I realise I don't live there or anything...
There was nothing wrong with what Endillon said. He didn't refer to all Jews himself, he referred to traditional Jewish thought. And he was right.
The world has moved on from traditional thoughts though, which is why it is insane to lump all together. Regardless of what traditional thinking might have entailed.
Mind, that clown on Teesside seems to have gotten away with buying an airport with no planes, so Street may well get a second term.
Labour majority, forget it. But Starmer PM in hung parliament? Very possible indeed.
Can be backed at over 6 right now and that's good. Because as soon as it dawns that the next GE will be Johnson v Starmer - ie neither will be replaced before then - that price will be 3.5 max.
IMO.
LAB might do better than expected in Scotland, CON doing nothing there.
Again LAB might do better than expected in Wales.
Good for LAB in London, CON doing nothing there, CON voters probably staying at home.
Not much joy for LAB in England outside London.
Not really bothered by mayor's or police commissioner elections, don't know why we have those.
The precise prime of life, in fact, for a man. Some maturity, intellectual and emotional, yet still with good physical capabilities.
Passes quickly though. Passes in the blink of an eye.
Now Pidcock’s partner is purged by Labour
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/now-pidcock-s-partner-is-purged-by-labour
But ask him. He's capable of speaking for himself too, I'm sure.
As for you, perhaps you can explain why "Corbyn offended the Jewish community" is iyo an antisemitic statement but your alternative of "Corbyn offended Jews" (rather than many Jews or most Jews) is absolutely aye okay.
??
The logic says you are right, in the end, but that will take a while
Also, sheer animal spirits. We have all been locked down. For a year. The animal within waits to be unleashed, that force will take some time to unwind. It will take the Tories to a probable victory in 23-24
If you're going to police language you need to watch your own.