The new mask thing is the most utter wankshittery.
You have to wear one in a pub garden "except when you are eating or drinking". What else do you do in a pub garden?
Or do they literally mean you have to put it on and take it off in between mouthfuls of lager?
Or do you have to put a mask on your face when you pause in your drinking and turn to your friend to smile and chat? Can't have that. PUT OUT THAT LIGHT
Someone in Mexico tried to solve this problem with nose masks.
Imagine travelling back in time and showing that photo to the williamglenn of 2019
Wasn't the @williamglenn of 2019 convinced that the Brexit vote was going to lead to us joining the Euro and being a part of the promised land?
I hadn't reckoned with Ursula von der Leyen. It was a different age under the competent leadership of Jean-Claude Juncker.
But it is in the nature of the EU beast that it will get incompetent fools like Ursula as leader, far too often, because the way it is designed - undemocratically - means national leaders send dull mediocrities, or Luxemburgers, to run Brussels, so they aren't threatened
I believe some people tried to explain this to you, around the time of the referendum
Ursula's uselessness at the EC is a feature, not a bug
This got me thinking - albeit tangentially.
France has exported a number of very capable people to the EU and other international organisations: Delors was (while not my cup of tea) capable; Barnier ditto; and Legarde is doing fine.
Yet the last French President who was even vaguely competent was Chirac.
Why?
Basically, the French elite education system is excellent at producing technocrats. When an institution faces problems that can be solved or fudged by fiddling with official structures, or building new ones, like say the Common Market in the 1980s, French technocrats have an impressive record. But when you reach the limits of what L'Etat can do, as the French state did in the late 1980s, they don't have a clue what to do next. They simply don't understand the private sector and how to help it thrive. They are horrified by its gales of unruly innovation and creative destruction.
In fairness, few enough of our politicians understand that either.
Basically, the French elite education system is excellent at producing technocrats. When an institution faces problems that can be solved or fudged by fiddling with official structures, or building new ones, like say the Common Market in the 1980s, French technocrats have an impressive record. But when you reach the limits of what L'Etat can do, as the French state did in the late 1980s, they don't have a clue what to do next. They simply don't understand the private sector and how to help it thrive. They are horrified by its gales of unruly innovation and creative destruction.
In fairness, few enough of our politicians understand that either.
That's fair - and indeed, it perhaps shouldn't be surprising that France's big private sector success stories are in sectors where massive capital investment and state support are necessary.
(Compare to Germany, where it is smaller companies that drive their economy.)
The new mask thing is the most utter wankshittery.
You have to wear one in a pub garden "except when you are eating or drinking". What else do you do in a pub garden?
Or do they literally mean you have to put it on and take it off in between mouthfuls of lager?
Or do you have to put a mask on your face when you pause in your drinking and turn to your friend to smile and chat? Can't have that. PUT OUT THAT LIGHT
Someone in Mexico tried to solve this problem with nose masks.
Imagine travelling back in time and showing that photo to the williamglenn of 2019
Wasn't the @williamglenn of 2019 convinced that the Brexit vote was going to lead to us joining the Euro and being a part of the promised land?
I hadn't reckoned with Ursula von der Leyen. It was a different age under the competent leadership of Jean-Claude Juncker.
But it is in the nature of the EU beast that it will get incompetent fools like Ursula as leader, far too often, because the way it is designed - undemocratically - means national leaders send dull mediocrities, or Luxemburgers, to run Brussels, so they aren't threatened
I believe some people tried to explain this to you, around the time of the referendum
Ursula's uselessness at the EC is a feature, not a bug
It's possible that I was suffering from Long Strasbourg Syndrome, but the symptoms have cleared up since my vaccination.
Your honest change of mind about the EU is quite admirable. Few have the courage to say Yeah, I got that one wrong - especially on such a major issue
This would be true, by the way, even if you had gone the other way. I would not agree, but I would salute your candour
I can't think of any other PB-er who has done this on such an important political topic. But then I've only been here a couple of weeks
According to the dashboard, the seven day rolling figure for total deaths has quite abruptly levelled off (i.e. until very recently it was dropping consistently by about a third every week, but now suddenly the decline is zero.) And yet the cases and hospitalisations are still dropping markedly.
I'm sure that there's some perfectly reasonable explanation for this (probably related to the Easter holiday) but I can't think what it is. It's just rather odd.
Easter, tbh the reported deaths this week matching last week is good because last week was very low for 5 days of the week.
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?
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)
Is it OK to say "BAME people" or "BAME voters"? Or "a BAME person"?
Serious questions. You know you are the PB expert on the correct use of "BAME". The go-to guy
There are no hard and fast "rules". That's the key thing to grasp. It's all about context and tone - having a feel for what sounds ok and what doesn't. We've done an example and this should be enough to get you on the right path. Specially given you're a pro writer and therefore no slouch with 'look and feel' of language.
So, just a simple "thank you" would be nice, and we can revisit at a later point.
Unless of course you're trying to make some sort of fatuous point about the "policing of language". If so it's not really working. Not on any level.
I wasn't making any point. You have set yourself up as PB's Wokemaster General, and you do like to school people on the correct use of terms like BAME, so I was genuinely inquiring how a Very Woke Person like you would advise on the use of this word. Because, honestly, it seems quite vague, and vagueness is no good when people can get into trouble for using the wrong word or the right word the wrong way
Saying "Coloured people" can get you sacked, saying "people of colour" will not.
However, it turns out there are no rules, it's just "having a feel for what sounds OK". And I have a vague suspicion that how YOU *feel* about it will turn out to be more important than how someone else *feels*. Which is a rum do, indeed
You're not engaging one iota with what I'm saying, either through lack of capacity or lack of desire. Sense a bit of both. It's like you have the next post written and lined up regardless. Point is, as I say, this stuff is for me about context and tone. If there were a book I could lend you, I would. But there just isn't.
But you clearly prefer to feel victimized and hemmed in by all these imaginary hard & fast "rules" that only the "woke" know about and understand. Fine. That's your call. I've tried to help - to free you up a bit - but I can see it's not getting through. You can lead a horse to water ...
Prediction: you will now quietly stop using BAME
In about six months you will piously lecture other, less-woke people who are still using it
The umpteenth airing of that piece of projecting nonsense speaks volumes.
You actually have nothing of any real insight to offer on this, do you? Just chuntering away.
Austria has wrapped up negotiations to acquire Russia’s Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said Saturday.
In a briefing to local media, Kurz said the talks had “de facto come to an end” making it possible for Austria to buy one million doses and provide an “additional turbo” to the country's vaccination rollout.
Kurz first revealed that he was in talks with Russia to purchase the vaccine in late March, following a February 26 phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Basically, the French elite education system is excellent at producing technocrats. When an institution faces problems that can be solved or fudged by fiddling with official structures, or building new ones, like say the Common Market in the 1980s, French technocrats have an impressive record. But when you reach the limits of what L'Etat can do, as the French state did in the late 1980s, they don't have a clue what to do next. They simply don't understand the private sector and how to help it thrive. They are horrified by its gales of unruly innovation and creative destruction.
In fairness, few enough of our politicians understand that either.
It's incredible to think that almost every French President since 1974* is a graduate of a school which takes 80 to 90 students each year.
* Mitterand would have been too old to have been there; the only *real* exception is Sarkozy
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.
With military involvement, the coffin will move to St George’s chapel, flanked by pallbearers. Members of the armed forces will line the route. Members of the Royal Family including the Prince of Wales will walk behind the coffin. The Queen will travel separately to the chapel.
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.
Still less,' distrust of the met police felt by "the BAME community", or "BAME people"'
In a few years we will look back with amazement that we used such an ugly, clumsy, patronising term, that assumes everyone non-white thinks the same way, and casually lumps them all together for the ease of bureaucrats
According to the dashboard, the seven day rolling figure for total deaths has quite abruptly levelled off (i.e. until very recently it was dropping consistently by about a third every week, but now suddenly the decline is zero.) And yet the cases and hospitalisations are still dropping markedly.
I'm sure that there's some perfectly reasonable explanation for this (probably related to the Easter holiday) but I can't think what it is. It's just rather odd.
The reporting days deaths isn't really important anymore. That figure is just "The total of deaths we've got around to reporting today" and is very reliant on days of the week and holiday periods, like Easter.
Malmesbury's figure above of deaths-by-date-they-actually-occurred is the "real" information behind it. And there, there has been a bit of a levelling off recently, but that was mainly because cases had levelled off for weeks when you look back 20 days or so, and the vast majority of the most vulnerable had been single-dosed (bringing their chance of death down by about a factor of six).
Now, though, the double-doses are going through in wholesale fashion, which also gives a double-tap to transmission, so I'd expect deaths to start trending down again soon (there has been what looks like a mini-spike recently, centred on the 8th of April, but as there were no significant spikes in cases or hospitalisations twenty or ten days earlier respectively, and no hints of any major shifts in demographics being infected, odds are very high that it's just random luck of the draw.
When numbers are this low, a half dozen or so deaths happening on one or two days rather than a couple of other days (eg, people not dying on the 4th and 5th but sadly letting go after lingering three or four days longer) has a big impact on the shape of the graph.
Austria has wrapped up negotiations to acquire Russia’s Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said Saturday.
In a briefing to local media, Kurz said the talks had “de facto come to an end” making it possible for Austria to buy one million doses and provide an “additional turbo” to the country's vaccination rollout.
Kurz first revealed that he was in talks with Russia to purchase the vaccine in late March, following a February 26 phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Off topic but snowing heavily for 2 hours. It is now lying and we are getting quite a covering. In the day time in April. Not particularly high up either. Roll on Spring. Although it'll be Summer at this rate.
According to the dashboard, the seven day rolling figure for total deaths has quite abruptly levelled off (i.e. until very recently it was dropping consistently by about a third every week, but now suddenly the decline is zero.) And yet the cases and hospitalisations are still dropping markedly.
I'm sure that there's some perfectly reasonable explanation for this (probably related to the Easter holiday) but I can't think what it is. It's just rather odd.
Easter, tbh the reported deaths this week matching last week is good because last week was very low for 5 days of the week.
You'd think it would still be going down regardless though? I suppose we'll have to see where we are in another weeks' time...
Austria has wrapped up negotiations to acquire Russia’s Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said Saturday.
In a briefing to local media, Kurz said the talks had “de facto come to an end” making it possible for Austria to buy one million doses and provide an “additional turbo” to the country's vaccination rollout.
Kurz first revealed that he was in talks with Russia to purchase the vaccine in late March, following a February 26 phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Off topic but snowing heavily for 2 hours. It is now lying and we are getting quite a covering. In the day time in April. Not particularly high up either. Roll on Spring. Although it'll be Summer at this rate.
Sky reporting the Queen has appealed for the public not to come to Windsor but it will televised including the 8 minute procession to the Chapel and mourn with her through the televised service, at home
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?
There is a boring, middle ground here.
Talking about the BAME community makes little sense. Just like terms like ethnic, black, brown, white, coloured or people of colour, the term BAME is problematic. There is a need for such words to highlight the reality of the world we live in, even if in an ideal world they would not be necessary and should be irrelevant. Because they are problematic such terms do have a limited shelf life before society moves onto to another word.
1: A young black man in Hackney, in a rough estate, son of a single mother, no father figure, went to a rough school, joined a gang, carries a knife and sells drugs. 2: A young white man in Hackney, in a rough estate, son of a single mother, no father figure, went to a rough school, joined a gang, carries a knife and sells drugs. Next door neighbour of the first person, in the same gang, went to same school, mates. 3: A young black man in Kensington, from a wealthy home, two professional parents, went to a private school, going to Oxbridge, never been in trouble, never known poverty.
Which two of those three are part of the same "community"?
If your definition of "community" is defined by looking at someone's skin, you are a racist.
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.
According to the dashboard, the seven day rolling figure for total deaths has quite abruptly levelled off (i.e. until very recently it was dropping consistently by about a third every week, but now suddenly the decline is zero.) And yet the cases and hospitalisations are still dropping markedly.
I'm sure that there's some perfectly reasonable explanation for this (probably related to the Easter holiday) but I can't think what it is. It's just rather odd.
The reporting days deaths isn't really important anymore. That figure is just "The total of deaths we've got around to reporting today" and is very reliant on days of the week and holiday periods, like Easter.
Malmesbury's figure above of deaths-by-date-they-actually-occurred is the "real" information behind it. And there, there has been a bit of a levelling off recently, but that was mainly because cases had levelled off for weeks when you look back 20 days or so, and the vast majority of the most vulnerable had been single-dosed (bringing their chance of death down by about a factor of six).
Now, though, the double-doses are going through in wholesale fashion, which also gives a double-tap to transmission, so I'd expect deaths to start trending down again soon (there has been what looks like a mini-spike recently, centred on the 8th of April, but as there were no significant spikes in cases or hospitalisations twenty or ten days earlier respectively, and no hints of any major shifts in demographics being infected, odds are very high that it's just random luck of the draw.
When numbers are this low, a half dozen or so deaths happening on one or two days rather than a couple of other days (eg, people not dying on the 4th and 5th but sadly letting go after lingering three or four days longer) has a big impact on the shape of the graph.
Seems fair enough. Will try to remember this going forward.
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.
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.
Still less,' distrust of the met police felt by "the BAME community", or "BAME people"'
In a few years we will look back with amazement that we used such an ugly, clumsy, patronising term, that assumes everyone non-white thinks the same way, and casually lumps them all together for the ease of bureaucrats
Even Kinabalu will join in this head-shaking
What's the word for somebody who is comfortable with casual racism masquerading as being super sensitive to the feelings of ethnic minorities?
What happened to all the betters on politicalbetting.com?
Is it just me, Stocky, Topping and Pulpy?
Jeez. Anyway, the race.
I usually have a crack at the National each year, if nothing else, but part of the ritual is going to the betting shop (a necessary part, given that I'm old fashioned in this respect and don't do it online.) Hence the fact that it's just passed me by this year.
Basically, the French elite education system is excellent at producing technocrats. When an institution faces problems that can be solved or fudged by fiddling with official structures, or building new ones, like say the Common Market in the 1980s, French technocrats have an impressive record. But when you reach the limits of what L'Etat can do, as the French state did in the late 1980s, they don't have a clue what to do next. They simply don't understand the private sector and how to help it thrive. They are horrified by its gales of unruly innovation and creative destruction.
In fairness, few enough of our politicians understand that either.
It's incredible to think that almost every French President since 1974* is a graduate of a school which takes 80 to 90 students each year.
* Mitterand would have been too old to have been there; the only *real* exception is Sarkozy
What is most remarkable is that the country of egalite and fraternite puts up with it.
"In a world that seems to be divided between neoliberal orthodoxy and identitarian dogmas, it is possible to miss the waning presence of traditional social democracy. Born of the radical Left in Marx’s own time, social democrats worked, sometimes with remarkable success, to improve the living standards of working people by accommodating the virtues of capitalism. Today, that kind of social democracy—learned at home from my immigrant grandparents and from the late Michael Harrington, one time head of the American Socialist Party—is all but dead. This tradition was, in retrospect, perhaps too optimistic about the efficacy of government. Nevertheless, it sincerely sought to improve popular conditions and respected the wisdom of ordinary people."
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?
There is a boring, middle ground here.
Talking about the BAME community makes little sense. Just like terms like ethnic, black, brown, white, coloured or people of colour, the term BAME is problematic. There is a need for such words to highlight the reality of the world we live in, even if in an ideal world they would not be necessary and should be irrelevant. Because they are problematic such terms do have a limited shelf life before society moves onto to another word.
That's quite fair
The issue here is that Lefties use this ever-changing lexical rulebook to trip up opponents: and get them cancelled. It seems quite deliberate. You have to be really on top of the game to know when this particular word is out and the next particular word is in, as we see here when half of the hyper-sensitive "PB community" is unaware that BAME has passed away
The next shift will be in America, when they drop "persons of colour" or the new initialisms POC or BIPOC
They are as offensive as BAME. Who wants to be called a POC or a BIPOC?
Interestingly, the Guardian article on the End of BAME concludes by saying there may not BE an agreed replacement this time, they might have exhausted the dictionary
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.
Still less,' distrust of the met police felt by "the BAME community", or "BAME people"'
In a few years we will look back with amazement that we used such an ugly, clumsy, patronising term, that assumes everyone non-white thinks the same way, and casually lumps them all together for the ease of bureaucrats
Even Kinabalu will join in this head-shaking
What's the word for somebody who is comfortable with casual racism masquerading as being super sensitive to the feelings of ethnic minorities?
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.
Incidentally, insulting the memory of the DoE is offending a minority group, for whom he is their literal God.
Isn't defaming the Gods and Prophets of minority groups racism of the vile, punching-down, kind?
Are you trying to make one of your (iyo) "clever and subversive" and (imo) "oh dear, how to break it to him?" anti-woke points again?
I'm just curious how people resolve these contradictions.
Its theology - what do you do when your belief X collides with belief Y?
The rules for which religions are insult-able and which aren't seem to be unwritten and yet inflexible. No-one can tell me why Mormonism is in the "ok to insult" column and Baháʼí isn't.....
You are perfectly free to criticize any religion you want. Just as with comedy, there are 'punching down' vs 'punching up' considerations but this is something you either feel or you don't. It's not gospel. You don't have to take that into account if you think it's bollox. You just seem overly hung-up on this to me. I think the Muslim thing bugs you a lot, doesn't it?
No, not really.
It's just that if we are to live life by these rules, which can have such consequences, we should be able to quantify them. Explain them.
Ah, "feels".... So you want to reserve judgement until afterwards? Interesting
What was the quote - "This time it was law from the dark side of the gut. Serious stuff."
And just to clarify - since I sense we might be at cross purposes on my "feels" comment.
What I mean is it up to each person whether they consider the 'punching down vs punching up' distinction is important. And as to whether something IS punching down or up (or neither), this too is to some extent a matter of subjectivity.
That's all. So no call, sadly, for the rather darkly portentous "This time it was law from the dark side of the gut."
Although I know you like to slip stuff like that in to self-present as well read and deep.
Well, to consider the practical effects. A group of people watched what happened with this on TV. They drew the following conclusion
- A "community" that threatens violence due to being "offended" gets it's own way, in modern Britain. - Therefore we must be offended and violent about it.
The people in question were some of the originators of what became the EDL. It was specifically mentioned by the people involved in a documentary EDL, on CH4, IIRC
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)
Is it OK to say "BAME people" or "BAME voters"? Or "a BAME person"?
Serious questions. You know you are the PB expert on the correct use of "BAME". The go-to guy
There are no hard and fast "rules". That's the key thing to grasp. It's all about context and tone - having a feel for what sounds ok and what doesn't. We've done an example and this should be enough to get you on the right path. Specially given you're a pro writer and therefore no slouch with 'look and feel' of language.
So, just a simple "thank you" would be nice, and we can revisit at a later point.
Unless of course you're trying to make some sort of fatuous point about the "policing of language". If so it's not really working. Not on any level.
I wasn't making any point. You have set yourself up as PB's Wokemaster General, and you do like to school people on the correct use of terms like BAME, so I was genuinely inquiring how a Very Woke Person like you would advise on the use of this word. Because, honestly, it seems quite vague, and vagueness is no good when people can get into trouble for using the wrong word or the right word the wrong way
Saying "Coloured people" can get you sacked, saying "people of colour" will not.
However, it turns out there are no rules, it's just "having a feel for what sounds OK". And I have a vague suspicion that how YOU *feel* about it will turn out to be more important than how someone else *feels*. Which is a rum do, indeed
You're not engaging one iota with what I'm saying, either through lack of capacity or lack of desire. Sense a bit of both. It's like you have the next post written and lined up regardless. Point is, as I say, this stuff is for me about context and tone. If there were a book I could lend you, I would. But there just isn't.
But you clearly prefer to feel victimized and hemmed in by all these imaginary hard & fast "rules" that only the "woke" know about and understand. Fine. That's your call. I've tried to help - to free you up a bit - but I can see it's not getting through. You can lead a horse to water ...
Prediction: you will now quietly stop using BAME
In about six months you will piously lecture other, less-woke people who are still using it
The umpteenth airing of that piece of projecting nonsense speaks volumes.
You actually have nothing of any real insight to offer on this, do you? Just chuntering away.
Suggest a return to topics such as exotic travel.
You know I am right. It irks you
What irks me - and it does - is my sense that some of the more intellectually vulnerable members of this forum can be led astray by your shtick.
I know I should chill but it's hard. I feel a duty. This blog is important. It's read by opinion formers all over the country and beyond.
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)
Is it OK to say "BAME people" or "BAME voters"? Or "a BAME person"?
Serious questions. You know you are the PB expert on the correct use of "BAME". The go-to guy
There are no hard and fast "rules". That's the key thing to grasp. It's all about context and tone - having a feel for what sounds ok and what doesn't. We've done an example and this should be enough to get you on the right path. Specially given you're a pro writer and therefore no slouch with 'look and feel' of language.
So, just a simple "thank you" would be nice, and we can revisit at a later point.
Unless of course you're trying to make some sort of fatuous point about the "policing of language". If so it's not really working. Not on any level.
I wasn't making any point. You have set yourself up as PB's Wokemaster General, and you do like to school people on the correct use of terms like BAME, so I was genuinely inquiring how a Very Woke Person like you would advise on the use of this word. Because, honestly, it seems quite vague, and vagueness is no good when people can get into trouble for using the wrong word or the right word the wrong way
Saying "Coloured people" can get you sacked, saying "people of colour" will not.
However, it turns out there are no rules, it's just "having a feel for what sounds OK". And I have a vague suspicion that how YOU *feel* about it will turn out to be more important than how someone else *feels*. Which is a rum do, indeed
You're not engaging one iota with what I'm saying, either through lack of capacity or lack of desire. Sense a bit of both. It's like you have the next post written and lined up regardless. Point is, as I say, this stuff is for me about context and tone. If there were a book I could lend you, I would. But there just isn't.
But you clearly prefer to feel victimized and hemmed in by all these imaginary hard & fast "rules" that only the "woke" know about and understand. Fine. That's your call. I've tried to help - to free you up a bit - but I can see it's not getting through. You can lead a horse to water ...
Prediction: you will now quietly stop using BAME
In about six months you will piously lecture other, less-woke people who are still using it
The umpteenth airing of that piece of projecting nonsense speaks volumes.
You actually have nothing of any real insight to offer on this, do you? Just chuntering away.
Suggest a return to topics such as exotic travel.
You know I am right. It irks you
What irks me - and it does - is my sense that some of the more intellectually vulnerable members of this forum can be led astray by your shtick.
I know I should chill but it's hard. I feel a duty. This blog is important. It's read by opinion formers all over the country and beyond.
According to the dashboard, the seven day rolling figure for total deaths has quite abruptly levelled off (i.e. until very recently it was dropping consistently by about a third every week, but now suddenly the decline is zero.) And yet the cases and hospitalisations are still dropping markedly.
I'm sure that there's some perfectly reasonable explanation for this (probably related to the Easter holiday) but I can't think what it is. It's just rather odd.
The reporting days deaths isn't really important anymore. That figure is just "The total of deaths we've got around to reporting today" and is very reliant on days of the week and holiday periods, like Easter.
Malmesbury's figure above of deaths-by-date-they-actually-occurred is the "real" information behind it. And there, there has been a bit of a levelling off recently, but that was mainly because cases had levelled off for weeks when you look back 20 days or so, and the vast majority of the most vulnerable had been single-dosed (bringing their chance of death down by about a factor of six).
Now, though, the double-doses are going through in wholesale fashion, which also gives a double-tap to transmission, so I'd expect deaths to start trending down again soon (there has been what looks like a mini-spike recently, centred on the 8th of April, but as there were no significant spikes in cases or hospitalisations twenty or ten days earlier respectively, and no hints of any major shifts in demographics being infected, odds are very high that it's just random luck of the draw.
When numbers are this low, a half dozen or so deaths happening on one or two days rather than a couple of other days (eg, people not dying on the 4th and 5th but sadly letting go after lingering three or four days longer) has a big impact on the shape of the graph.
At the risk of setting off the punsters, we're in Poisson territory now.
According to the dashboard, the seven day rolling figure for total deaths has quite abruptly levelled off (i.e. until very recently it was dropping consistently by about a third every week, but now suddenly the decline is zero.) And yet the cases and hospitalisations are still dropping markedly.
I'm sure that there's some perfectly reasonable explanation for this (probably related to the Easter holiday) but I can't think what it is. It's just rather odd.
The reporting days deaths isn't really important anymore. That figure is just "The total of deaths we've got around to reporting today" and is very reliant on days of the week and holiday periods, like Easter.
Malmesbury's figure above of deaths-by-date-they-actually-occurred is the "real" information behind it. And there, there has been a bit of a levelling off recently, but that was mainly because cases had levelled off for weeks when you look back 20 days or so, and the vast majority of the most vulnerable had been single-dosed (bringing their chance of death down by about a factor of six).
Now, though, the double-doses are going through in wholesale fashion, which also gives a double-tap to transmission, so I'd expect deaths to start trending down again soon (there has been what looks like a mini-spike recently, centred on the 8th of April, but as there were no significant spikes in cases or hospitalisations twenty or ten days earlier respectively, and no hints of any major shifts in demographics being infected, odds are very high that it's just random luck of the draw.
When numbers are this low, a half dozen or so deaths happening on one or two days rather than a couple of other days (eg, people not dying on the 4th and 5th but sadly letting go after lingering three or four days longer) has a big impact on the shape of the graph.
Seems fair enough. Will try to remember this going forward.
It is worth remembering that the pervious time we have cases, admissions and deaths this low, there was a very long tail. Just like this.
The new mask thing is the most utter wankshittery.
You have to wear one in a pub garden "except when you are eating or drinking". What else do you do in a pub garden?
Or do they literally mean you have to put it on and take it off in between mouthfuls of lager?
Or do you have to put a mask on your face when you pause in your drinking and turn to your friend to smile and chat? Can't have that. PUT OUT THAT LIGHT
Someone in Mexico tried to solve this problem with nose masks.
Imagine travelling back in time and showing that photo to the williamglenn of 2019
Wasn't the @williamglenn of 2019 convinced that the Brexit vote was going to lead to us joining the Euro and being a part of the promised land?
I hadn't reckoned with Ursula von der Leyen. It was a different age under the competent leadership of Jean-Claude Juncker.
But it is in the nature of the EU beast that it will get incompetent fools like Ursula as leader, far too often, because the way it is designed - undemocratically - means national leaders send dull mediocrities, or Luxemburgers, to run Brussels, so they aren't threatened
I believe some people tried to explain this to you, around the time of the referendum
Ursula's uselessness at the EC is a feature, not a bug
There was a wonderful Borgen episode which covered exactly this - an incompetent but political threat was shipped off to the EU.
The title?
"In Brussels no one can hear you scream"!
Nothing beats Malcolm Bradbury's The Gravy Train.
(Which starred, as I have mentioned before a young Christop Waltz.)
According to the dashboard, the seven day rolling figure for total deaths has quite abruptly levelled off (i.e. until very recently it was dropping consistently by about a third every week, but now suddenly the decline is zero.) And yet the cases and hospitalisations are still dropping markedly.
I'm sure that there's some perfectly reasonable explanation for this (probably related to the Easter holiday) but I can't think what it is. It's just rather odd.
The reporting days deaths isn't really important anymore. That figure is just "The total of deaths we've got around to reporting today" and is very reliant on days of the week and holiday periods, like Easter.
Malmesbury's figure above of deaths-by-date-they-actually-occurred is the "real" information behind it. And there, there has been a bit of a levelling off recently, but that was mainly because cases had levelled off for weeks when you look back 20 days or so, and the vast majority of the most vulnerable had been single-dosed (bringing their chance of death down by about a factor of six).
Now, though, the double-doses are going through in wholesale fashion, which also gives a double-tap to transmission, so I'd expect deaths to start trending down again soon (there has been what looks like a mini-spike recently, centred on the 8th of April, but as there were no significant spikes in cases or hospitalisations twenty or ten days earlier respectively, and no hints of any major shifts in demographics being infected, odds are very high that it's just random luck of the draw.
When numbers are this low, a half dozen or so deaths happening on one or two days rather than a couple of other days (eg, people not dying on the 4th and 5th but sadly letting go after lingering three or four days longer) has a big impact on the shape of the graph.
At the risk of setting off the punsters, we're in Poisson territory now.
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'.
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)
Is it OK to say "BAME people" or "BAME voters"? Or "a BAME person"?
Serious questions. You know you are the PB expert on the correct use of "BAME". The go-to guy
There are no hard and fast "rules". That's the key thing to grasp. It's all about context and tone - having a feel for what sounds ok and what doesn't. We've done an example and this should be enough to get you on the right path. Specially given you're a pro writer and therefore no slouch with 'look and feel' of language.
So, just a simple "thank you" would be nice, and we can revisit at a later point.
Unless of course you're trying to make some sort of fatuous point about the "policing of language". If so it's not really working. Not on any level.
I wasn't making any point. You have set yourself up as PB's Wokemaster General, and you do like to school people on the correct use of terms like BAME, so I was genuinely inquiring how a Very Woke Person like you would advise on the use of this word. Because, honestly, it seems quite vague, and vagueness is no good when people can get into trouble for using the wrong word or the right word the wrong way
Saying "Coloured people" can get you sacked, saying "people of colour" will not.
However, it turns out there are no rules, it's just "having a feel for what sounds OK". And I have a vague suspicion that how YOU *feel* about it will turn out to be more important than how someone else *feels*. Which is a rum do, indeed
You're not engaging one iota with what I'm saying, either through lack of capacity or lack of desire. Sense a bit of both. It's like you have the next post written and lined up regardless. Point is, as I say, this stuff is for me about context and tone. If there were a book I could lend you, I would. But there just isn't.
But you clearly prefer to feel victimized and hemmed in by all these imaginary hard & fast "rules" that only the "woke" know about and understand. Fine. That's your call. I've tried to help - to free you up a bit - but I can see it's not getting through. You can lead a horse to water ...
Prediction: you will now quietly stop using BAME
In about six months you will piously lecture other, less-woke people who are still using it
The umpteenth airing of that piece of projecting nonsense speaks volumes.
You actually have nothing of any real insight to offer on this, do you? Just chuntering away.
Suggest a return to topics such as exotic travel.
You know I am right. It irks you
What irks me - and it does - is my sense that some of the more intellectually vulnerable members of this forum can be led astray by your shtick.
I know I should chill but it's hard. I feel a duty. This blog is important. It's read by opinion formers all over the country and beyond.
I've got it down to 9 horses (probably a 70-75% chance it's one of them that wins) but that's still too many so I need to chop it down a bit further so I back no more than 5 or 6.
£10 win Cloth Cap (6-1); £5 Talkischeap (60.0) Smarkets, £5 Talkischeap 5 places (10.0) Smarkets for me
I haven't bothered with Cloth Cap. Yes, it may well win, but I'm not attracted at such a short price for a race that hinges so much on luck. My six picks:
Any Second Now Burrow's Saint Minella Times Magic of Light Acapella Bourgeois Taking Risks
Longshots - Class Conti
I've got a 6 place bet on Minella Celebration too.
Austria has wrapped up negotiations to acquire Russia’s Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said Saturday.
In a briefing to local media, Kurz said the talks had “de facto come to an end” making it possible for Austria to buy one million doses and provide an “additional turbo” to the country's vaccination rollout.
Kurz first revealed that he was in talks with Russia to purchase the vaccine in late March, following a February 26 phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The new mask thing is the most utter wankshittery.
You have to wear one in a pub garden "except when you are eating or drinking". What else do you do in a pub garden?
Or do they literally mean you have to put it on and take it off in between mouthfuls of lager?
Or do you have to put a mask on your face when you pause in your drinking and turn to your friend to smile and chat? Can't have that. PUT OUT THAT LIGHT
Someone in Mexico tried to solve this problem with nose masks.
Imagine travelling back in time and showing that photo to the williamglenn of 2019
Wasn't the @williamglenn of 2019 convinced that the Brexit vote was going to lead to us joining the Euro and being a part of the promised land?
I hadn't reckoned with Ursula von der Leyen. It was a different age under the competent leadership of Jean-Claude Juncker.
But it is in the nature of the EU beast that it will get incompetent fools like Ursula as leader, far too often, because the way it is designed - undemocratically - means national leaders send dull mediocrities, or Luxemburgers, to run Brussels, so they aren't threatened
I believe some people tried to explain this to you, around the time of the referendum
Ursula's uselessness at the EC is a feature, not a bug
There was a wonderful Borgen episode which covered exactly this - an incompetent but political threat was shipped off to the EU.
The title?
"In Brussels no one can hear you scream"!
Nothing beats Malcolm Bradbury's The Gravy Train.
(Which starred, as I have mentioned before a young Christop Waltz.)
The funeral commences at 3.00pm at Windsor and a national minutes silence is appropriate
As long as it's voluntary.
It will be completely voluntary, Komrade!
Any sound will be picked up by your Personal! TeleScreen! and fed into The! Peoples! Algorithm!
Any resultant reduction is Social Credit Scores for you, your extended family, pets, neighbours etc, is entirely your fault!
In the 1990s I can't remember ever being instructed to solemnly follow a minutes' silence, or anything of that type. It was always down to the individual. I don't like living in a more authoritarian society where everyone is supposed to do something, whether they like it or not. There really does seem to be a fashion for bossiness these days which I strongly dislike, and it comes from all sides of the political spectrum.
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)
Is it OK to say "BAME people" or "BAME voters"? Or "a BAME person"?
Serious questions. You know you are the PB expert on the correct use of "BAME". The go-to guy
There are no hard and fast "rules". That's the key thing to grasp. It's all about context and tone - having a feel for what sounds ok and what doesn't. We've done an example and this should be enough to get you on the right path. Specially given you're a pro writer and therefore no slouch with 'look and feel' of language.
So, just a simple "thank you" would be nice, and we can revisit at a later point.
Unless of course you're trying to make some sort of fatuous point about the "policing of language". If so it's not really working. Not on any level.
I wasn't making any point. You have set yourself up as PB's Wokemaster General, and you do like to school people on the correct use of terms like BAME, so I was genuinely inquiring how a Very Woke Person like you would advise on the use of this word. Because, honestly, it seems quite vague, and vagueness is no good when people can get into trouble for using the wrong word or the right word the wrong way
Saying "Coloured people" can get you sacked, saying "people of colour" will not.
However, it turns out there are no rules, it's just "having a feel for what sounds OK". And I have a vague suspicion that how YOU *feel* about it will turn out to be more important than how someone else *feels*. Which is a rum do, indeed
You're not engaging one iota with what I'm saying, either through lack of capacity or lack of desire. Sense a bit of both. It's like you have the next post written and lined up regardless. Point is, as I say, this stuff is for me about context and tone. If there were a book I could lend you, I would. But there just isn't.
But you clearly prefer to feel victimized and hemmed in by all these imaginary hard & fast "rules" that only the "woke" know about and understand. Fine. That's your call. I've tried to help - to free you up a bit - but I can see it's not getting through. You can lead a horse to water ...
Prediction: you will now quietly stop using BAME
In about six months you will piously lecture other, less-woke people who are still using it
The umpteenth airing of that piece of projecting nonsense speaks volumes.
You actually have nothing of any real insight to offer on this, do you? Just chuntering away.
Suggest a return to topics such as exotic travel.
You know I am right. It irks you
What irks me - and it does - is my sense that some of the more intellectually vulnerable members of this forum can be led astray by your shtick.
I know I should chill but it's hard. I feel a duty. This blog is important. It's read by opinion formers all over the country and beyond.
Grow up
Oh. Unexpected, that, I must say.
Because it's quite a big improvement.
Shall we park this one? We must be boring the tits off everyone else
BBC1 19:30 Prince Philip: 1.92m (12%) 21:00: Prince Philip: 2.1m (12%)
ITV 17:00 Prince Philip: 1.8m (16%) 19:00 Prince Philip 1.5m (10%)
Despite what the establishment thinks, vast majority of the public aren't interested.
Indeed. Time for normal TV and radio broadcasts back please. It is sad of course for his family, as all of us who have lost a loved one know (myself included) but I'm not interested in 'group mourning' a man I never met, and didn't know.
According to the dashboard, the seven day rolling figure for total deaths has quite abruptly levelled off (i.e. until very recently it was dropping consistently by about a third every week, but now suddenly the decline is zero.) And yet the cases and hospitalisations are still dropping markedly.
I'm sure that there's some perfectly reasonable explanation for this (probably related to the Easter holiday) but I can't think what it is. It's just rather odd.
The reporting days deaths isn't really important anymore. That figure is just "The total of deaths we've got around to reporting today" and is very reliant on days of the week and holiday periods, like Easter.
Malmesbury's figure above of deaths-by-date-they-actually-occurred is the "real" information behind it. And there, there has been a bit of a levelling off recently, but that was mainly because cases had levelled off for weeks when you look back 20 days or so, and the vast majority of the most vulnerable had been single-dosed (bringing their chance of death down by about a factor of six).
Now, though, the double-doses are going through in wholesale fashion, which also gives a double-tap to transmission, so I'd expect deaths to start trending down again soon (there has been what looks like a mini-spike recently, centred on the 8th of April, but as there were no significant spikes in cases or hospitalisations twenty or ten days earlier respectively, and no hints of any major shifts in demographics being infected, odds are very high that it's just random luck of the draw.
When numbers are this low, a half dozen or so deaths happening on one or two days rather than a couple of other days (eg, people not dying on the 4th and 5th but sadly letting go after lingering three or four days longer) has a big impact on the shape of the graph.
At the risk of setting off the punsters, we're in Poisson territory now.
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.
Incidentally, insulting the memory of the DoE is offending a minority group, for whom he is their literal God.
Isn't defaming the Gods and Prophets of minority groups racism of the vile, punching-down, kind?
Are you trying to make one of your (iyo) "clever and subversive" and (imo) "oh dear, how to break it to him?" anti-woke points again?
I'm just curious how people resolve these contradictions.
Its theology - what do you do when your belief X collides with belief Y?
The rules for which religions are insult-able and which aren't seem to be unwritten and yet inflexible. No-one can tell me why Mormonism is in the "ok to insult" column and Baháʼí isn't.....
You are perfectly free to criticize any religion you want. Just as with comedy, there are 'punching down' vs 'punching up' considerations but this is something you either feel or you don't. It's not gospel. You don't have to take that into account if you think it's bollox. You just seem overly hung-up on this to me. I think the Muslim thing bugs you a lot, doesn't it?
No, not really.
It's just that if we are to live life by these rules, which can have such consequences, we should be able to quantify them. Explain them.
Ah, "feels".... So you want to reserve judgement until afterwards? Interesting
What was the quote - "This time it was law from the dark side of the gut. Serious stuff."
And just to clarify - since I sense we might be at cross purposes on my "feels" comment.
What I mean is it up to each person whether they consider the 'punching down vs punching up' distinction is important. And as to whether something IS punching down or up (or neither), this too is to some extent a matter of subjectivity.
That's all. So no call, sadly, for the rather darkly portentous "This time it was law from the dark side of the gut."
Although I know you like to slip stuff like that in to self-present as well read and deep.
Well, to consider the practical effects. A group of people watched what happened with this on TV. They drew the following conclusion
- A "community" that threatens violence due to being "offended" gets it's own way, in modern Britain. - Therefore we must be offended and violent about it.
The people in question were some of the originators of what became the EDL. It was specifically mentioned by the people involved in a documentary EDL, on CH4, IIRC
Ok. So what's the big point you want to get across to me?
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.
Still less,' distrust of the met police felt by "the BAME community", or "BAME people"'
In a few years we will look back with amazement that we used such an ugly, clumsy, patronising term, that assumes everyone non-white thinks the same way, and casually lumps them all together for the ease of bureaucrats
Even Kinabalu will join in this head-shaking
What's the word for somebody who is comfortable with casual racism masquerading as being super sensitive to the feelings of ethnic minorities?
BBC1 19:30 Prince Philip: 1.92m (12%) 21:00: Prince Philip: 2.1m (12%)
ITV 17:00 Prince Philip: 1.8m (16%) 19:00 Prince Philip 1.5m (10%)
Despite what the establishment thinks, vast majority of the public aren't interested.
But it's not about that. The BBC and ITV feel they are obliged to show the utmost respect.
Oh sure - of course - I know!
And BBC is in the middle of Licence Fee negotiations, and they are both lobbying the Govt hard to get prominence rules widened to all media - so, eg, if you turn your Sky box on they can't have home page with Sky content more prominent. Prominence rules currently only apply to positions on the actual EPG.
BBC1 19:30 Prince Philip: 1.92m (12%) 21:00: Prince Philip: 2.1m (12%)
ITV 17:00 Prince Philip: 1.8m (16%) 19:00 Prince Philip 1.5m (10%)
Despite what the establishment thinks, vast majority of the public aren't interested.
It's just completely overboard.
He's died, it's very sad. But that's it, I don't care beyond that. I didn't know him.
The fact it's going to be going on another week - with this ridiculous one minute silence - is absolutely absurd I'm afraid.
Here's a secret - they don't arrest people for not participating in a minutes' silence, or a clap for the NHS, or playing dance dance revolution to beat poverty or whatever.
Incredibly, no one needs to participate in it at all, so it's almost like complaining about it is really, really odd. Don't tell anyone, but I didn't do a minutes silence on 11 November, and yet the bastards televise a whole thing about remembrance every year. Emotional bullying!
It reminds me of those anti-vaxxers claiming they won't take a voluntary vaccine because they are against mandatory vaccination.
BBC1 19:30 Prince Philip: 1.92m (12%) 21:00: Prince Philip: 2.1m (12%)
ITV 17:00 Prince Philip: 1.8m (16%) 19:00 Prince Philip 1.5m (10%)
Despite what the establishment thinks, vast majority of the public aren't interested.
It's just completely overboard.
He's died, it's very sad. But that's it, I don't care beyond that. I didn't know him.
The fact it's going to be going on another week - with this ridiculous one minute silence - is absolutely absurd I'm afraid.
It's right-wing Wokery.
But as @BluestBlue said now you know how some of us felt about the months of endless paeans about George Floyd and BLM, and accusations of racism towards anyone who thought it was a bit much.
Is the real story of the Grand National that Smarkets has traded £67 million on the win market compared to £5.8 million for Betfair ?
Is this apples and oranges? In the past different exchanges have treated £10 @ 25 as anything from £10 matched through to £500 matched.
What's the calculation that Smarkets uses?
Not sure but they always have a ridiculously high volume of matched bets, but no liquidity. They seem to just copy Betfair on some markets, and also banned me from using the exchange, the ay bookies make "trading decisions" to stop winners picking them off, so there is definitely something fishy gwan on with them
BBC1 19:30 Prince Philip: 1.92m (12%) 21:00: Prince Philip: 2.1m (12%)
ITV 17:00 Prince Philip: 1.8m (16%) 19:00 Prince Philip 1.5m (10%)
Despite what the establishment thinks, vast majority of the public aren't interested.
It's just completely overboard.
He's died, it's very sad. But that's it, I don't care beyond that. I didn't know him.
The fact it's going to be going on another week - with this ridiculous one minute silence - is absolutely absurd I'm afraid.
It's right-wing Wokery.
But as @BluestBlue said now you know how some of us felt about the months of endless paeans about George Floyd and BLM, and accusations of racism towards anyone who thought it was a bit much.
Fair play for expanding the use of woke to cover both left and right.
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.
My question was and is - How are we to, for example, discuss the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London if we first pronounce that skin colour is irrelevant?
I've got it down to 9 horses (probably a 70-75% chance it's one of them that wins) but that's still too many so I need to chop it down a bit further so I back no more than 5 or 6.
£10 win Cloth Cap (6-1); £5 Talkischeap (60.0) Smarkets, £5 Talkischeap 5 places (10.0) Smarkets for me
I haven't bothered with Cloth Cap. Yes, it may well win, but I'm not attracted at such a short price for a race that hinges so much on luck. My six picks:
Any Second Now Burrow's Saint Minella Times Magic of Light Acapella Bourgeois Taking Risks
Longshots - Class Conti
I've got a 6 place bet on Minella Celebration too.
Nice job.
I'll follow you next year.
I'd like to claim it was skill but, let's face it, it's blind luck.
I didn't bet on Jett, who did phenomenally well before flagging.
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?
There is a boring, middle ground here.
Talking about the BAME community makes little sense. Just like terms like ethnic, black, brown, white, coloured or people of colour, the term BAME is problematic. There is a need for such words to highlight the reality of the world we live in, even if in an ideal world they would not be necessary and should be irrelevant. Because they are problematic such terms do have a limited shelf life before society moves onto to another word.
What do you think I'm saying that is materially different to this? If indeed you do.
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.
My question was and is - How are we to, for example, discuss the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London if we first pronounce that skin colour is irrelevant?
I'm looking for an answer to that.
It's certainly true we do not, yet, live in a race blind world. Pretending we do won't help get there, not completely. But I'm personally very skeptical that hyper awareness of race and community (a much overused word which inevitably lumps people together in simplistic fashion) is a way to achieve it either.
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.
True, but even then there will be lots of complaints, and it will be a struggle even for those of us who feel genuinely affected by such an era transition.
And that Guardian long piece on plans for HM suggest there'll be at least 11 days coverage.
Comments
Basically, the French elite education system is excellent at producing technocrats. When an institution faces problems that can be solved or fudged by fiddling with official structures, or building new ones, like say the Common Market in the 1980s, French technocrats have an impressive record. But when you reach the limits of what L'Etat can do, as the French state did in the late 1980s, they don't have a clue what to do next. They simply don't understand the private sector and how to help it thrive. They are horrified by its gales of unruly innovation and creative destruction.
In fairness, few enough of our politicians understand that either.
(Compare to Germany, where it is smaller companies that drive their economy.)
This would be true, by the way, even if you had gone the other way. I would not agree, but I would salute your candour
I can't think of any other PB-er who has done this on such an important political topic. But then I've only been here a couple of weeks
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?
HYUFD assured us it will not be televised
* Mitterand would have been too old to have been there; the only *real* exception is Sarkozy
Not by the fictional "black community" of London.
In a few years we will look back with amazement that we used such an ugly, clumsy, patronising term, that assumes everyone non-white thinks the same way, and casually lumps them all together for the ease of bureaucrats
Even Kinabalu will join in this head-shaking
Malmesbury's figure above of deaths-by-date-they-actually-occurred is the "real" information behind it. And there, there has been a bit of a levelling off recently, but that was mainly because cases had levelled off for weeks when you look back 20 days or so, and the vast majority of the most vulnerable had been single-dosed (bringing their chance of death down by about a factor of six).
Now, though, the double-doses are going through in wholesale fashion, which also gives a double-tap to transmission, so I'd expect deaths to start trending down again soon (there has been what looks like a mini-spike recently, centred on the 8th of April, but as there were no significant spikes in cases or hospitalisations twenty or ten days earlier respectively, and no hints of any major shifts in demographics being infected, odds are very high that it's just random luck of the draw.
When numbers are this low, a half dozen or so deaths happening on one or two days rather than a couple of other days (eg, people not dying on the 4th and 5th but sadly letting go after lingering three or four days longer) has a big impact on the shape of the graph.
Not particularly high up either.
Roll on Spring. Although it'll be Summer at this rate.
Yeah, right
Is it just me, Stocky, Topping and Pulpy?
Jeez. Anyway, the race.
A great lady indeed
Talking about the BAME community makes little sense.
Just like terms like ethnic, black, brown, white, coloured or people of colour, the term BAME is problematic.
There is a need for such words to highlight the reality of the world we live in, even if in an ideal world they would not be necessary and should be irrelevant.
Because they are problematic such terms do have a limited shelf life before society moves onto to another word.
1: A young black man in Hackney, in a rough estate, son of a single mother, no father figure, went to a rough school, joined a gang, carries a knife and sells drugs.
2: A young white man in Hackney, in a rough estate, son of a single mother, no father figure, went to a rough school, joined a gang, carries a knife and sells drugs. Next door neighbour of the first person, in the same gang, went to same school, mates.
3: A young black man in Kensington, from a wealthy home, two professional parents, went to a private school, going to Oxbridge, never been in trouble, never known poverty.
Which two of those three are part of the same "community"?
If your definition of "community" is defined by looking at someone's skin, you are a racist.
That's what I'm probing.
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.
Is there one?
EDIT: Unseated at the fourth. Typical!
written by Joel Kotkin"
https://quillette.com/2021/04/07/what-happened-to-social-democracy/
"In a world that seems to be divided between neoliberal orthodoxy and identitarian dogmas, it is possible to miss the waning presence of traditional social democracy. Born of the radical Left in Marx’s own time, social democrats worked, sometimes with remarkable success, to improve the living standards of working people by accommodating the virtues of capitalism. Today, that kind of social democracy—learned at home from my immigrant grandparents and from the late Michael Harrington, one time head of the American Socialist Party—is all but dead. This tradition was, in retrospect, perhaps too optimistic about the efficacy of government. Nevertheless, it sincerely sought to improve popular conditions and respected the wisdom of ordinary people."
The issue here is that Lefties use this ever-changing lexical rulebook to trip up opponents: and get them cancelled. It seems quite deliberate. You have to be really on top of the game to know when this particular word is out and the next particular word is in, as we see here when half of the hyper-sensitive "PB community" is unaware that BAME has passed away
The next shift will be in America, when they drop "persons of colour" or the new initialisms POC or BIPOC
They are as offensive as BAME. Who wants to be called a POC or a BIPOC?
Interestingly, the Guardian article on the End of BAME concludes by saying there may not BE an agreed replacement this time, they might have exhausted the dictionary
Oh come on, really?
- A "community" that threatens violence due to being "offended" gets it's own way, in modern Britain.
- Therefore we must be offended and violent about it.
The people in question were some of the originators of what became the EDL. It was specifically mentioned by the people involved in a documentary EDL, on CH4, IIRC
I know I should chill but it's hard. I feel a duty. This blog is important. It's read by opinion formers all over the country and beyond.
Great performance by Jett, though.
*stares at this Brave New World, in amazement*
Oh, she's Irish
Mind you, Dettori was placed one year, wasn't he?
Jett made the race. Glad they finished safe and sound.
BBC1
19:30 Prince Philip: 1.92m (12%)
21:00: Prince Philip: 2.1m (12%)
ITV
17:00 Prince Philip: 1.8m (16%)
19:00 Prince Philip 1.5m (10%)
Despite what the establishment thinks, vast majority of the public aren't interested.
Backed 5 horses inc the fav and none of them even came close.
Pft
He's died, it's very sad. But that's it, I don't care beyond that. I didn't know him.
The fact it's going to be going on another week - with this ridiculous one minute silence - is absolutely absurd I'm afraid.
In his inexplicable absence, let me do the honours
Alex Deane
@ajcdeane
·
5h
"Trade with France bounces back to pre-Brexit levels"
https://twitter.com/ajcdeane/status/1380836091012526080?s=20
Any sound will be picked up by your Personal! TeleScreen! and fed into The! Peoples! Algorithm!
Any resultant reduction is Social Credit Scores for you, your extended family, pets, neighbours etc, is entirely your fault!
Because it's quite a big improvement.
I'll follow you next year.
It starts slow, but is quite good
Alexi Sayle as Milcic, the demented plum salesman is a high note....
Just spit it out.
And BBC is in the middle of Licence Fee negotiations, and they are both lobbying the Govt hard to get prominence rules widened to all media - so, eg, if you turn your Sky box on they can't have home page with Sky content more prominent. Prominence rules currently only apply to positions on the actual EPG.
If that is an accurate report about a discussion with an AI I say unplug the feckers now......
Incredibly, no one needs to participate in it at all, so it's almost like complaining about it is really, really odd. Don't tell anyone, but I didn't do a minutes silence on 11 November, and yet the bastards televise a whole thing about remembrance every year. Emotional bullying!
It reminds me of those anti-vaxxers claiming they won't take a voluntary vaccine because they are against mandatory vaccination.
Get rid!
But as @BluestBlue said now you know how some of us felt about the months of endless paeans about George Floyd and BLM, and accusations of racism towards anyone who thought it was a bit much.
I'm looking for an answer to that.
I didn't bet on Jett, who did phenomenally well before flagging.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
And I remember them both very well
And that Guardian long piece on plans for HM suggest there'll be at least 11 days coverage.