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
You used to be able to manufacture smarkets liquidity by placing bets on obscure/lightly traded betfair markets.
Although I never did it, and it involved some risk, it looked to me like you could make serious money manipulating their odds.
Dunno if that’s still possible. It’s borderline fraud. Either way, smarkets business model seems to me to be parasitic and slightly scummy.
Still, Happy to use them for the odd bet at decent odds and keep my balance low.
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.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
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.
Ok. great. So you agree with me that skin colour is sadly NOT irrelevant, yes?
With the obligatory caveat added to make it clear you're not "woke".
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.
If you think this is bad wait until HMQEII shuffles off.......but it will also be quite different - when the queen dies there will be a new King to toast, today it's a simple loss.
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.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
I dunno. People said the same about Mandela and all I remember about his farewell was Obama and Cameron getting in trouble with their wives for flirting with that danish sort.
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.
Not in the slightest. It will be existential and fundamental for Britain - what we are, who we are and what comes next - and our place in the world.
I'm sure it'll test the patience of any staunch republican, but even they'll have to concede (quietly) that's valid.
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?
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.
Nothing in particular, just a different emphasis. Stocky has a fair point that grouping people by "colour" is problematic, and that goes beyond the part imaginary "community" of those broad groups (part imaginary as there often are such communities but they are not well defined and don't include everyone with that "label"). You are right in saying that sometimes it is necessary to do so to understand what is happening in society.
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
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.
I would suspect that the criminal community is even more distrustful of the police.
It’s disturbing how dreadfully inept Ursula von der Leyen has proved, but what’s even worse is her flailing about to blame everyone else for her shortcomings. When Jean Claude Juncker kept falling over because he was pissed, while he may have lied about the reasons at least he didn’t claim anyone pushed him.
If she carries on like this in 24 months the EU will have no allies left.
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.
Ok. great. So you agree with me that skin colour is sadly NOT irrelevant, yes?
With the obligatory caveat added to make it clear you're not "woke".
Of course race is not irrelevant. But it depends what people mean by woke. For the longest time I only ever heard it used an insult, so I thought that its original meaning had been supplanted. It seems to be making a comeback.
The serious point is that some people like to imply or outright state anyone who is not self declared woke does not care about racial issues or even thinks there are no such issues anymore. But just like not all woke warriors are obnoxious, nor are all those anti-woke warriors in denial or obnoxious.
Many people are woke without liking that label. Others may use the label but be far less woke than they think they are (the 'clearly racist, anti-racist campaigner' problem, as I like to call it).
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.
I would suspect that the criminal community is even more distrustful of the police.
Really? In Gloucestershire the criminal community were the one group who really trusted them.
Everyone else knew that they were crooks only out for themselves and knew to avoid them at all costs.
Staffs aren’t as bad, in my (fortunately limited) experience.
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.
Won't catch on though unfortunately.
It should. Woke, useful idiot, snowflake, gammon, terms like these can be applied pretty broadly.
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.
If you think this is bad wait until HMQEII shuffles off.......but it will also be quite different - when the queen dies there will be a new King to toast, today it's a simple loss.
When the time comes, I wonder how long it will take some people to get used to the fact that the words to the national anthem have changed...?
It’s disturbing how dreadfully inept Ursula von der Leyen has proved, but what’s even worse is her flailing about to blame everyone else for her shortcomings. When Jean Claude Juncker kept falling over because he was pissed, while he may have lied about the reasons at least he didn’t claim anyone pushed him.
If she carries on like this in 24 months the EU will have no allies left.
I'm not sure what is worse - that UvDL is steaming over a diplomatic faux-pas, or that others are steaming about it even though she is not.
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.
Nothing in particular, just a different emphasis. Stocky has a fair point that grouping people by "colour" is problematic, and that goes beyond the part imaginary "community" of those broad groups (part imaginary as there often are such communities but they are not well defined and don't include everyone with that "label"). You are right in saying that sometimes it is necessary to do so to understand what is happening in society.
Ah ok. Well I'm not arguing that it's a positively good thing to be always referring to such groupings, so tbh we're probably on the same page.
What I'm not keen on is people doing the old simplistic virtue-signalling shtick - equating the noble aspiration of being race blind with having to pretend that we are already there.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
I flicked through the news channels on Sky yesterday mid-afternoon
Only the UK/Europe focused ones, such as France 24 (English), Euro News were leading with it.
The other Asian, Middle East and African channels were leading with local stories, RT was talking about the AZ vaccine.
The suggestion was it would be for the world when the Queen dies. How much coverage other places will have will vary, but it's a good bet when she does a lot of those channels will make a bigger deal of it than when her husband passed away.
The only bigger story would be if Greta Thunberg died.
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.
As I commented this morning the late King died in February 1952 but the coronation was not for over a year until June 1953
And I remember them both very well
Coronations take a lot of planning and historically just a year or so after accession is quite fast. George VI's coronation was within six months of his accession as it had been planned for Edward VIII who, er, no longer had need of it.
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.
As I commented this morning the late King died in February 1952 but the coronation was not for over a year until June 1953
And I remember them both very well
Coronations take a lot of planning and historically just a year or so after accession is quite fast. George VI's coronation was within six months of his accession as it had been planned for Edward VIII who, er, no longer had need of it.
Oh, I imagine Charles has had time to plan it in exacting detail.
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.
Ok. great. So you agree with me that skin colour is sadly NOT irrelevant, yes?
With the obligatory caveat added to make it clear you're not "woke".
Of course race is not irrelevant. But it depends what people mean by woke. For the longest time I only ever heard it used an insult, so I thought that its original meaning had been supplanted. It seems to be making a comeback.
The serious point is that some people like to imply or outright state anyone who is not self declared woke does not care about racial issues or even thinks there are no such issues anymore. But just like not all woke warriors are obnoxious, nor are all those anti-woke warriors in denial or obnoxious.
Many people are woke without liking that label. Others may use the label but be far less woke than they think they are (the 'clearly racist, anti-racist campaigner' problem, as I like to call it).
The problem is that people are totally self-absorbed and narcisstic dicks about it and use it as an excuse to show off about themselves and pompously lecture others depending on what "group" they are in, rather than help others feel more included in a practical and measured way that demonstrates real leadership.
It’s disturbing how dreadfully inept Ursula von der Leyen has proved, but what’s even worse is her flailing about to blame everyone else for her shortcomings. When Jean Claude Juncker kept falling over because he was pissed, while he may have lied about the reasons at least he didn’t claim anyone pushed him.
If she carries on like this in 24 months the EU will have no allies left.
I'm not sure what is worse - that UvDL is steaming over a diplomatic faux-pas, or that others are steaming about it even though she is not.
The point being, there was no diplomatic faux pas. Michel and Erdogan acted in accordance with the correct protocol which under Article 15 confirmed in 2011 gives precedence to the President of the Council.
So the only issue here is that von der Leyen is kicking up a fuss because she is a self-aggrandising fool who doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about and unnecessarily damaged relations with a regional power that was taking tentative steps back into the EU orbit.
That’s on top of her other train wrecks over Astra Zeneca and its contracts, which she lied about to cover her mistakes.
She is an accident looking for somewhere else to happen.
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.
Ok. great. So you agree with me that skin colour is sadly NOT irrelevant, yes?
With the obligatory caveat added to make it clear you're not "woke".
Of course race is not irrelevant. But it depends what people mean by woke. For the longest time I only ever heard it used an insult, so I thought that its original meaning had been supplanted. It seems to be making a comeback.
The serious point is that some people like to imply or outright state anyone who is not self declared woke does not care about racial issues or even thinks there are no such issues anymore. But just like not all woke warriors are obnoxious, nor are all those anti-woke warriors in denial or obnoxious.
Many people are woke without liking that label. Others may use the label but be far less woke than they think they are (the 'clearly racist, anti-racist campaigner' problem, as I like to call it).
Good post. Agree with all of it.
Highlighted the key bit for the (narrow) purposes I was pursuing.
I'll just tag @Stocky and bugger off now. Think that's best.
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.
Ok. great. So you agree with me that skin colour is sadly NOT irrelevant, yes?
With the obligatory caveat added to make it clear you're not "woke".
Of course race is not irrelevant. But it depends what people mean by woke. For the longest time I only ever heard it used an insult, so I thought that its original meaning had been supplanted. It seems to be making a comeback.
The serious point is that some people like to imply or outright state anyone who is not self declared woke does not care about racial issues or even thinks there are no such issues anymore. But just like not all woke warriors are obnoxious, nor are all those anti-woke warriors in denial or obnoxious.
Many people are woke without liking that label. Others may use the label but be far less woke than they think they are (the 'clearly racist, anti-racist campaigner' problem, as I like to call it).
The problem is that people are totally self-absorbed and narcisstic dicks about it and use it as an excuse to show off about themselves and pompously lecture others depending on what "group" they are in, rather than help others feel more included in a practical and measured way that demonstrates real leadership.
That pisses me off.
While people may well not accept your conclusions on these issues, I would hope they would accept that you have thought about these things, including seeking discussion with affected persons about their experiences, in such a way that those conclusions should not be dismissed as being no different to those seeking to ignore things completely.
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.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
I dunno. People said the same about Mandela and all I remember about his farewell was Obama and Cameron getting in trouble with their wives for flirting with that danish sort.
It's not just about her amazing reign and how she created the Commonwealth and managed one of the most difficult transitions and modernisations/values shifts in world history but about what it means for the future and what comes next. It will have us glued to the edge of our seats for months.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
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.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
I dunno. People said the same about Mandela and all I remember about his farewell was Obama and Cameron getting in trouble with their wives for flirting with that danish sort.
Obama also got in trouble with some of his opponents for shaking hands with Raul Castro. I remember as Colbert joked about whether Nelson Mandela's funeral was really the place for reconciliations.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
I flicked through the news channels on Sky yesterday mid-afternoon
Only the UK/Europe focused ones, such as France 24 (English), Euro News were leading with it.
The other Asian, Middle East and African channels were leading with local stories, RT was talking about the AZ vaccine.
The suggestion was it would be for the world when the Queen dies. How much coverage other places will have will vary, but it's a good bet when she does a lot of those channels will make a bigger deal of it than when her husband passed away.
The only bigger story would be if Greta Thunberg died.
I think people in the West tend to overestimate its global cultural importance. Lee Kwan Yew and King Bumibol dying were huge news in Asia but I doubt most here even knew who they were. I lost count of the number of sober minded grownups sobbing at those two.
Sure, Betty Windsor is going to make the newspapers everywhere. But most people don’t read newspapers. It wouldn’t feature on wechat for too long. Bit like Brexit, I struggle to recall anyone in East Asia really talking about it much. They were a bit preoccupied with whether Kim was going to turn their cities to glass.
As for Greta, I’d forgotten all about her until you mentioned her name. Has she grown up and discovered what makes all the stuff?
It’s disturbing how dreadfully inept Ursula von der Leyen has proved, but what’s even worse is her flailing about to blame everyone else for her shortcomings. When Jean Claude Juncker kept falling over because he was pissed, while he may have lied about the reasons at least he didn’t claim anyone pushed him.
If she carries on like this in 24 months the EU will have no allies left.
I'm not sure what is worse - that UvDL is steaming over a diplomatic faux-pas, or that others are steaming about it even though she is not.
The point being, there was no diplomatic faux pas. Michel and Erdogan acted in accordance with the correct protocol which under Article 15 confirmed in 2011 gives precedence to the President of the Council.
So the only issue here is that von der Leyen is kicking up a fuss because she is a self-aggrandising fool who doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about and unnecessarily damaged relations with a regional power that was taking tentative steps back into the EU orbit.
That’s on top of her other train wrecks over Astra Zeneca and its contracts, which she lied about to cover her mistakes.
She is an accident looking for somewhere else to happen.
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.
As I commented this morning the late King died in February 1952 but the coronation was not for over a year until June 1953
And I remember them both very well
Coronations take a lot of planning and historically just a year or so after accession is quite fast. George VI's coronation was within six months of his accession as it had been planned for Edward VIII who, er, no longer had need of it.
Not ‘historically.’ Recently. So, for example, Edward VII’s coronation was in 1902 (and was postponed for three months because he was ill in June) and Victoria’s in 1838, but George I was crowned on the 20th October 1714, less than three months after the death of Anne and only 32 days after landing in Britain. This is because until fairly recently the King had no powers to act until he was crowned and therefore the government had to be managed by regents until that time - e.g. Lord Burghley for James I and Margaret Beaufort for Henry VIII. This is also why Henry VII had himself crowned on the battlefield and made damn good and sure his wife (through whom he had effectively claimed the throne) wasn’t crowned Queen until several years after he had married her.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
Certainly huge. No argument there. We're just maybe slightly differing on the degree of hugeness.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
I flicked through the news channels on Sky yesterday mid-afternoon
Only the UK/Europe focused ones, such as France 24 (English), Euro News were leading with it.
The other Asian, Middle East and African channels were leading with local stories, RT was talking about the AZ vaccine.
The suggestion was it would be for the world when the Queen dies. How much coverage other places will have will vary, but it's a good bet when she does a lot of those channels will make a bigger deal of it than when her husband passed away.
The only bigger story would be if Greta Thunberg died.
I think people in the West tend to overestimate its global cultural importance. Lee Kwan Yew and King Bumibol dying were huge news in Asia but I doubt most here even knew who they were. I lost count of the number of sober minded grownups sobbing at those two.
Sure, Betty Windsor is going to make the newspapers everywhere. But most people don’t read newspapers. It wouldn’t feature on wechat for too long. Bit like Brexit, I struggle to recall anyone in East Asia really talking about it much. They were a bit preoccupied with whether Kim was going to turn their cities to glass.
As for Greta, I’d forgotten all about her until you mentioned her name. Has she grown up and discovered what makes all the stuff?
The thing is because of her longevity and prominence the Queen is essentially one of the most recognizable people on the planet. It's not a question of being culturally important to people in, say, Laos, it's that it will be a really really big story in enough places that even where it is not as big a story, they will hear about it. Bumibol was big locally, but it is simply the case that the British Monarchy has a bigger global profile, not least because the Americans obsess about it so much, and that will filter out.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
I have a very good friend who has taught English in Beijing for the last 25 years.
Other than the European expats over there the locals really could not give the slightest shit about anything European related apparently, let alone UK.
From my understanding of how he describes the culture of a quarter of the planet, they are almost without exception totally focused on domestic issues and I would transpose that to meaning there will be no interest in whatever the news in the UK may be.
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.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
I dunno. People said the same about Mandela and all I remember about his farewell was Obama and Cameron getting in trouble with their wives for flirting with that danish sort.
It's not just about her amazing reign and how she created the Commonwealth and managed one of the most difficult transitions and modernisations/values shifts in world history but about what it means for the future and what comes next. It will have us glued to the edge of our seats for months.
That's why it's different.
Simon Cowell should do a programme for it. The 10 next in-lines all facing off against each other each week, shaking hands, cutting ribbons, signing red boxes, making small talk with a different guest African dictator each week.
The winner is the one who the public judges to have said the least of any interest or consequence.
Or to put another way, I think the death of the Queen is the most overhyped event ever in what it means for “what’s next”. It just don’t matter guv, it will be the same as the day before.
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.
Ok. great. So you agree with me that skin colour is sadly NOT irrelevant, yes?
With the obligatory caveat added to make it clear you're not "woke".
Of course race is not irrelevant. But it depends what people mean by woke. For the longest time I only ever heard it used an insult, so I thought that its original meaning had been supplanted. It seems to be making a comeback.
The serious point is that some people like to imply or outright state anyone who is not self declared woke does not care about racial issues or even thinks there are no such issues anymore. But just like not all woke warriors are obnoxious, nor are all those anti-woke warriors in denial or obnoxious.
Many people are woke without liking that label. Others may use the label but be far less woke than they think they are (the 'clearly racist, anti-racist campaigner' problem, as I like to call it).
The problem is that people are totally self-absorbed and narcisstic dicks about it and use it as an excuse to show off about themselves and pompously lecture others depending on what "group" they are in, rather than help others feel more included in a practical and measured way that demonstrates real leadership.
That pisses me off.
While people may well not accept your conclusions on these issues, I would hope they would accept that you have thought about these things, including seeking discussion with affected persons about their experiences, in such a way that those conclusions should not be dismissed as being no different to those seeking to ignore things completely.
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.
Not in the slightest. It will be existential and fundamental for Britain - what we are, who we are and what comes next - and our place in the world.
I'm sure it'll test the patience of any staunch republican, but even they'll have to concede (quietly) that's valid.
Well, England did become a republic/Commonwealth 144 years before France did, and 134 before the Yanks did.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
I’ve been avoiding PB as it’s become yet another Prince Phillip channel. As @Cyclefree says, yesterday’s blanket coverage on every BBC channel was beyond excessive, and nor was it popular. It’s been a big ratings turnoff. Why was Gardeners World cancelled?
Thankfully Radios 1, 3, 6 and 1X have now returned to broadcasting music.
The spectacle of a dedicated dance music station - DANCE MUSIC! - running an identical obituary feed to Radio 4 was beyond ludicrous.
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.
I would suspect that the criminal community is even more distrustful of the police.
Really? In Gloucestershire the criminal community were the one group who really trusted them.
Everyone else knew that they were crooks only out for themselves and knew to avoid them at all costs.
Staffs aren’t as bad, in my (fortunately limited) experience.
Please refer too them as the Legally Challenged Community. Criminal is so pejorative.
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.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
I dunno. People said the same about Mandela and all I remember about his farewell was Obama and Cameron getting in trouble with their wives for flirting with that danish sort.
It's not just about her amazing reign and how she created the Commonwealth and managed one of the most difficult transitions and modernisations/values shifts in world history but about what it means for the future and what comes next. It will have us glued to the edge of our seats for months.
That's why it's different.
Simon Cowell should do a programme for it. The 10 next in-lines all facing off against each other each week, shaking hands, cutting ribbons, signing red boxes, making small talk with a different guest African dictator each week.
The winner is the one who the public judges to have said the least of any interest or consequence.
Or to put another way, I think the death of the Queen is the most overhyped event ever in what it means for “what’s next”. It just don’t matter guv, it will be the same as the day before.
I think you're assessing it in a rather odd way. People don't need to be crying in the streets of Donetsk or Kampala about it for it to be a really big story.
And because it will matter to this country, and several others, in a big way, other places will officially make sure to say how much it matters to them, making it a story. Would it not being the leading item in Uruguay mean it was not, at that time, likely to be the biggest news story on the planet?
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.
I would suspect that the criminal community is even more distrustful of the police.
Really? In Gloucestershire the criminal community were the one group who really trusted them.
Everyone else knew that they were crooks only out for themselves and knew to avoid them at all costs.
Staffs aren’t as bad, in my (fortunately limited) experience.
Please refer too them as the Legally Challenged Community. Criminal is so pejorative.
Just read that stark New Yorker article about China, Uighurs and state surveillance by technology. It is 1984, but more sophisticated and sinister, and it is here
There are even echoes of Nazism. This bit struck me:
"In some cases, officials pursued an odd tactic [against Uighur buildings]: miniaturization. In 2018, the grand gatehouse of a mosque in the town of Kargilik was covered with a banner proclaiming, “Love the Party, love the country.” Then the structure was dismantled and rebuilt as an ersatz version of itself, at a quarter the size."
This is racist mockery as a state policy. The Nazis did something like this to Jews in occupied countries, they took Jewish tombstones and turned them into paving stones, so Jews had to walk and drive over them. They used other tombstones to build walls around the ghetto in Krakow
China is a dystopian autocracy, marrying elements of the Khmer Rouge and Nazism, with the economic and technological power of the USA. Terrifying.
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.
If you think this is bad wait until HMQEII shuffles off.......but it will also be quite different - when the queen dies there will be a new King to toast, today it's a simple loss.
When the time comes, I wonder how long it will take some people to get used to the fact that the words to the national anthem have changed...?
The ‘mister mayor, madam mayor’ bear trap familiar to anyone who has been a councillor.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
I flicked through the news channels on Sky yesterday mid-afternoon
Only the UK/Europe focused ones, such as France 24 (English), Euro News were leading with it.
The other Asian, Middle East and African channels were leading with local stories, RT was talking about the AZ vaccine.
The suggestion was it would be for the world when the Queen dies. How much coverage other places will have will vary, but it's a good bet when she does a lot of those channels will make a bigger deal of it than when her husband passed away.
The only bigger story would be if Greta Thunberg died.
Historically, the biggest funerals have occurred in Republics:
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
I flicked through the news channels on Sky yesterday mid-afternoon
Only the UK/Europe focused ones, such as France 24 (English), Euro News were leading with it.
The other Asian, Middle East and African channels were leading with local stories, RT was talking about the AZ vaccine.
The suggestion was it would be for the world when the Queen dies. How much coverage other places will have will vary, but it's a good bet when she does a lot of those channels will make a bigger deal of it than when her husband passed away.
The only bigger story would be if Greta Thunberg died.
I think people in the West tend to overestimate its global cultural importance. Lee Kwan Yew and King Bumibol dying were huge news in Asia but I doubt most here even knew who they were. I lost count of the number of sober minded grownups sobbing at those two.
Sure, Betty Windsor is going to make the newspapers everywhere. But most people don’t read newspapers. It wouldn’t feature on wechat for too long. Bit like Brexit, I struggle to recall anyone in East Asia really talking about it much. They were a bit preoccupied with whether Kim was going to turn their cities to glass.
As for Greta, I’d forgotten all about her until you mentioned her name. Has she grown up and discovered what makes all the stuff?
The thing is because of her longevity and prominence the Queen is essentially one of the most recognizable people on the planet. It's not a question of being culturally important to people in, say, Laos, it's that it will be a really really big story in enough places that even where it is not as big a story, they will hear about it. Bumibol was big locally, but it is simply the case that the British Monarchy has a bigger global profile, not least because the Americans obsess about it so much, and that will filter out.
See Kurt’s comment. Hardly anyone in half the world cares what the Americans are doing, much less the Brits. Sure, a truck driver in rural Laos may see it flash up on the tv news when he pops up to the shop to get some red bull. But he’ll shrug and go about his day. David Beckham on the other hand...
And in India I suspect the passing of David “Lovely Jubbly” Jason would illicit more genuine grief than the Queen among tuk tuk drivers.
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.
Won't catch on though unfortunately.
I recall causing a bit of moment, in a discussion concerning Charlie Gilmore and his fate.
I pointed out to someone, that just as they wanted X's life destroyed for "modern social crime"* Y, some people were equally angry about young Mister Gilmore.
It was an interesting moment - it produced a series of emotions, surprise, anger that their cause could be likened to the protection of the Cenotaph, surprise again at the thought that there were people who thought this way....
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.
I would suspect that the criminal community is even more distrustful of the police.
Really? In Gloucestershire the criminal community were the one group who really trusted them.
Everyone else knew that they were crooks only out for themselves and knew to avoid them at all costs.
Staffs aren’t as bad, in my (fortunately limited) experience.
Please refer too them as the Legally Challenged Community. Criminal is so pejorative.
At school I attended a conference where someone genuinely did say they did not believe in the term criminal. I don't recall if they had an alternative, or just wanted people to use some clunky descriptor like Citizen in Trouble or something.
Just read that stark New Yorker article about China, Uighurs and state surveillance by technology. It is 1984, but more sophisticated and sinister, and it is here
There are even echoes of Nazism. This bit struck me:
"In some cases, officials pursued an odd tactic [against Uighur buildings]: miniaturization. In 2018, the grand gatehouse of a mosque in the town of Kargilik was covered with a banner proclaiming, “Love the Party, love the country.” Then the structure was dismantled and rebuilt as an ersatz version of itself, at a quarter the size."
This is racist mockery as a state policy. The Nazis did something like this to Jews in occupied countries, they took Jewish tombstones and turned them into paving stones, so Jews had to walk and drive over them. They used other tombstones to build walls around the ghetto in Krakow
China is a dystopian autocracy, marrying elements of the Khmer Rouge and Nazism, with the economic and technological power of the USA. Terrifying.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
I have a very good friend who has taught English in Beijing for the last 25 years.
Other than the European expats over there the locals really could not give the slightest shit about anything European related apparently, let alone UK.
From my understanding of how he describes the culture of a quarter of the planet, they are almost without exception totally focused on domestic issues and I would transpose that to meaning there will be no interest in whatever the news in the UK may be.
One aspect of being global superpower that they have nailed already, then?
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.
Not in the slightest. It will be existential and fundamental for Britain - what we are, who we are and what comes next - and our place in the world.
I'm sure it'll test the patience of any staunch republican, but even they'll have to concede (quietly) that's valid.
Well, England did become a republic/Commonwealth 144 years before France did, and 134 before the Yanks did.
It's not our fault the Cromwells were twats!
Oliver Cromwell was hugely capable, but the entire republican experiment came about a century too early. The majority in Parliament managed to agree that the King was a bit rubbish, but alas they came up with no workable alternative. So when he wouldn't be put back in place as a figurehead and they had to give him the chop, the Lord Protector and the Army basically tried to put Jesus in charge. Hardly the basis for a workable and sustainable settlement.
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.
As I commented this morning the late King died in February 1952 but the coronation was not for over a year until June 1953
And I remember them both very well
Coronations take a lot of planning and historically just a year or so after accession is quite fast. George VI's coronation was within six months of his accession as it had been planned for Edward VIII who, er, no longer had need of it.
Not ‘historically.’ Recently. So, for example, Edward VII’s coronation was in 1902 (and was postponed for three months because he was ill in June) and Victoria’s in 1838, but George I was crowned on the 20th October 1714, less than three months after the death of Anne and only 32 days after landing in Britain. This is because until fairly recently the King had no powers to act until he was crowned and therefore the government had to be managed by regents until that time - e.g. Lord Burghley for James I and Margaret Beaufort for Henry VIII. This is also why Henry VII had himself crowned on the battlefield and made damn good and sure his wife (through whom he had effectively claimed the throne) wasn’t crowned Queen until several years after he had married her.
TIL, but is that an English peculiarity then? ISTR some Holy Roman Emperors taking sometimes decades to get their arses down to Rome to be crowned by the Pope.
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.
As I commented this morning the late King died in February 1952 but the coronation was not for over a year until June 1953
And I remember them both very well
Coronations take a lot of planning and historically just a year or so after accession is quite fast. George VI's coronation was within six months of his accession as it had been planned for Edward VIII who, er, no longer had need of it.
I've heard this said before, but is it really the planning that takes all that time, or the desire to have a period of mourning and not to rush after the death of the previous monarch?
I mean, I know these are complex events, but there must surely have been enormous amounts of planning work already, and I struggle to believe a further year is really needed as opposed to simply being deemed appropriate.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
Well you know my views on this. I think we’re getting a steady drip of statements, leaks and confirmations on this until at some point in the not distant future the US President gives a speech that people finally take notice of. Doubt it’s this first report to Congress that triggers, I suspect the dusty CIA disclosure manual calls for a more gradual reveal than that. But I could be wrong.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
I flicked through the news channels on Sky yesterday mid-afternoon
Only the UK/Europe focused ones, such as France 24 (English), Euro News were leading with it.
The other Asian, Middle East and African channels were leading with local stories, RT was talking about the AZ vaccine.
The suggestion was it would be for the world when the Queen dies. How much coverage other places will have will vary, but it's a good bet when she does a lot of those channels will make a bigger deal of it than when her husband passed away.
The only bigger story would be if Greta Thunberg died.
I think people in the West tend to overestimate its global cultural importance. Lee Kwan Yew and King Bumibol dying were huge news in Asia but I doubt most here even knew who they were. I lost count of the number of sober minded grownups sobbing at those two.
Sure, Betty Windsor is going to make the newspapers everywhere. But most people don’t read newspapers. It wouldn’t feature on wechat for too long. Bit like Brexit, I struggle to recall anyone in East Asia really talking about it much. They were a bit preoccupied with whether Kim was going to turn their cities to glass.
As for Greta, I’d forgotten all about her until you mentioned her name. Has she grown up and discovered what makes all the stuff?
The thing is because of her longevity and prominence the Queen is essentially one of the most recognizable people on the planet. It's not a question of being culturally important to people in, say, Laos, it's that it will be a really really big story in enough places that even where it is not as big a story, they will hear about it. Bumibol was big locally, but it is simply the case that the British Monarchy has a bigger global profile, not least because the Americans obsess about it so much, and that will filter out.
See Kurt’s comment. Hardly anyone in half the world cares what the Americans are doing, much less the Brits. Sure, a truck driver in rural Laos may see it flash up on the tv news when he pops up to the shop to get some red bull. But he’ll shrug and go about his day. David Beckham on the other hand...
And in India I suspect the passing of David “Lovely Jubbly” Jason would illicit more genuine grief than the Queen among tuk tuk drivers.
I just don't know why you think an assessment of genuine grief is relevant. If we judge global relevance based on number of people feeling something genuinely from a news story the only ones that matter are Chinese State news bulletins.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
I flicked through the news channels on Sky yesterday mid-afternoon
Only the UK/Europe focused ones, such as France 24 (English), Euro News were leading with it.
The other Asian, Middle East and African channels were leading with local stories, RT was talking about the AZ vaccine.
The suggestion was it would be for the world when the Queen dies. How much coverage other places will have will vary, but it's a good bet when she does a lot of those channels will make a bigger deal of it than when her husband passed away.
The only bigger story would be if Greta Thunberg died.
Historically, the biggest funerals have occurred in Republics:
Just read that stark New Yorker article about China, Uighurs and state surveillance by technology. It is 1984, but more sophisticated and sinister, and it is here
There are even echoes of Nazism. This bit struck me:
"In some cases, officials pursued an odd tactic [against Uighur buildings]: miniaturization. In 2018, the grand gatehouse of a mosque in the town of Kargilik was covered with a banner proclaiming, “Love the Party, love the country.” Then the structure was dismantled and rebuilt as an ersatz version of itself, at a quarter the size."
This is racist mockery as a state policy. The Nazis did something like this to Jews in occupied countries, they took Jewish tombstones and turned them into paving stones, so Jews had to walk and drive over them. They used other tombstones to build walls around the ghetto in Krakow
China is a dystopian autocracy, marrying elements of the Khmer Rouge and Nazism, with the economic and technological power of the USA. Terrifying.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
When the aliens land, they still should only devote BBC1 to covering it. There will still be people expecting to see Masterchef on BBC2.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
She's currently head of state of:
UK Australia Canada New Zealand Antigua & Barbuda Bahamas Barbados Belize Grenada Jamaica Papua New Guinea St Christopher & Nevis St Lucia St Vincent & The Grenadines Solomon Islands Tuvalu
It’s disturbing how dreadfully inept Ursula von der Leyen has proved, but what’s even worse is her flailing about to blame everyone else for her shortcomings. When Jean Claude Juncker kept falling over because he was pissed, while he may have lied about the reasons at least he didn’t claim anyone pushed him.
If she carries on like this in 24 months the EU will have no allies left.
I'm not sure what is worse - that UvDL is steaming over a diplomatic faux-pas, or that others are steaming about it even though she is not.
The point being, there was no diplomatic faux pas. Michel and Erdogan acted in accordance with the correct protocol which under Article 15 confirmed in 2011 gives precedence to the President of the Council.
So the only issue here is that von der Leyen is kicking up a fuss because she is a self-aggrandising fool who doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about and unnecessarily damaged relations with a regional power that was taking tentative steps back into the EU orbit.
That’s on top of her other train wrecks over Astra Zeneca and its contracts, which she lied about to cover her mistakes.
She is an accident looking for somewhere else to happen.
One thing that is slightly unusual in her track record, is the blaming. She always blames specific people or companies for her failings, rather than being a bit nebulous.
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.
Not in the slightest. It will be existential and fundamental for Britain - what we are, who we are and what comes next - and our place in the world.
I'm sure it'll test the patience of any staunch republican, but even they'll have to concede (quietly) that's valid.
Well, England did become a republic/Commonwealth 144 years before France did, and 134 before the Yanks did.
It's not our fault the Cromwells were twats!
Oliver Cromwell was hugely capable, but the entire republican experiment came about a century too early. The majority in Parliament managed to agree that the King was a bit rubbish, but alas they came up with no workable alternative. So when he wouldn't be put back in place as a figurehead and they had to give him the chop, the Lord Protector and the Army basically tried to put Jesus in charge. Hardly the basis for a workable and sustainable settlement.
Yet that period laid the foundations for much that makes our country what it is.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
Well you know my views on this. I think we’re getting a steady drip of statements, leaks and confirmations on this until at some point in the not distant future the US President gives a speech that people finally take notice of. Doubt it’s this first report to Congress that triggers, I suspect the dusty CIA disclosure manual calls for a more gradual reveal than that. But I could be wrong.
I used to wonder whether something like that was really going on, but surely Trump would have blabbed it about five minutes after his inauguration if it was.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
Well you know my views on this. I think we’re getting a steady drip of statements, leaks and confirmations on this until at some point in the not distant future the US President gives a speech that people finally take notice of. Doubt it’s this first report to Congress that triggers, I suspect the dusty CIA disclosure manual calls for a more gradual reveal than that. But I could be wrong.
I used to wonder whether something like that was really going on, but surely Trump would have blabbed it about five minutes after his inauguration if it was.
I have entertained similar thoughts recently. Odd rumours....
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.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
I dunno. People said the same about Mandela and all I remember about his farewell was Obama and Cameron getting in trouble with their wives for flirting with that danish sort.
It's not just about her amazing reign and how she created the Commonwealth and managed one of the most difficult transitions and modernisations/values shifts in world history but about what it means for the future and what comes next. It will have us glued to the edge of our seats for months.
That's why it's different.
Simon Cowell should do a programme for it. The 10 next in-lines all facing off against each other each week, shaking hands, cutting ribbons, signing red boxes, making small talk with a different guest African dictator each week.
The winner is the one who the public judges to have said the least of any interest or consequence.
Or to put another way, I think the death of the Queen is the most overhyped event ever in what it means for “what’s next”. It just don’t matter guv, it will be the same as the day before.
I think you're assessing it in a rather odd way. People don't need to be crying in the streets of Donetsk or Kampala about it for it to be a really big story.
And because it will matter to this country, and several others, in a big way, other places will officially make sure to say how much it matters to them, making it a story. Would it not being the leading item in Uruguay mean it was not, at that time, likely to be the biggest news story on the planet?
The news media obsess about things that normal people do not. That is essentially how you make money from politicalbetting is it not?
In the Uk people will generally agree the Queen dying is very sad. “What a life. Won’t it be odd seeing Charles as King. Anyway, what’s on Netflix, the BBC have gone doo lally”.
It won’t be a cause of national introspection in the way assumed.
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.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
I dunno. People said the same about Mandela and all I remember about his farewell was Obama and Cameron getting in trouble with their wives for flirting with that danish sort.
It's not just about her amazing reign and how she created the Commonwealth and managed one of the most difficult transitions and modernisations/values shifts in world history but about what it means for the future and what comes next. It will have us glued to the edge of our seats for months.
That's why it's different.
Simon Cowell should do a programme for it. The 10 next in-lines all facing off against each other each week, shaking hands, cutting ribbons, signing red boxes, making small talk with a different guest African dictator each week.
The winner is the one who the public judges to have said the least of any interest or consequence.
Or to put another way, I think the death of the Queen is the most overhyped event ever in what it means for “what’s next”. It just don’t matter guv, it will be the same as the day before.
In the sense of geopolitics or politics or just business it wont matter , but it will matter on a more social human level . It will be the end of an era in that so much has changed culturally as well as politically since she came to public life that a lot of people wil reflect on that (as they have done with Prince Philip) .To me it will be a sad event for that reason as I have been saddened by Prince Philips death .You don't have to be a ardent monarchist to appreciate the connection of them to the social change in the world over the last 70 years and therefore feel a loss. To all those moaning about the blanket coverage I personally think you are being a little shallow and also it is so easy to tailor your life to avoid it if you really want to with netflix etc
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.
Not in the slightest. It will be existential and fundamental for Britain - what we are, who we are and what comes next - and our place in the world.
I'm sure it'll test the patience of any staunch republican, but even they'll have to concede (quietly) that's valid.
Well, England did become a republic/Commonwealth 144 years before France did, and 134 before the Yanks did.
It's not our fault the Cromwells were twats!
I wouldn't call it entirely the Cromwells fault (Oliver's at least) why the republic failed. It being a cobbled together and likely unpopular solution at a time of enormous social, relgious and political strife and its most powerful figure dying before it had a chance to properly settle seems more relevant.
Just read that stark New Yorker article about China, Uighurs and state surveillance by technology. It is 1984, but more sophisticated and sinister, and it is here
There are even echoes of Nazism. This bit struck me:
"In some cases, officials pursued an odd tactic [against Uighur buildings]: miniaturization. In 2018, the grand gatehouse of a mosque in the town of Kargilik was covered with a banner proclaiming, “Love the Party, love the country.” Then the structure was dismantled and rebuilt as an ersatz version of itself, at a quarter the size."
This is racist mockery as a state policy. The Nazis did something like this to Jews in occupied countries, they took Jewish tombstones and turned them into paving stones, so Jews had to walk and drive over them. They used other tombstones to build walls around the ghetto in Krakow
China is a dystopian autocracy, marrying elements of the Khmer Rouge and Nazism, with the economic and technological power of the USA. Terrifying.
This is why we need to be wary of QR codes and their accoutrements.
You got to feel for a country like Hong Kong. They have gone from English Liberty and Common Law.... to this. In a couple of years. Fuck
I wonder if I will ever travel in Hong Kong or China again.
Another scary thought is what China could do with a technology like GPT3 (or 4 or 5). They will get it.
On the other hand we could always use it against THEM, I suppose
When I went to China a few years ago I didn't spring for the extra amount to have a few days in Hong Kong. Wish I had now - sure, I can still go, but it probably won't feel the same as it would have then.
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.
As I commented this morning the late King died in February 1952 but the coronation was not for over a year until June 1953
And I remember them both very well
Coronations take a lot of planning and historically just a year or so after accession is quite fast. George VI's coronation was within six months of his accession as it had been planned for Edward VIII who, er, no longer had need of it.
I've heard this said before, but is it really the planning that takes all that time, or the desire to have a period of mourning and not to rush after the death of the previous monarch?
I mean, I know these are complex events, but there must surely have been enormous amounts of planning work already, and I struggle to believe a further year is really needed as opposed to simply being deemed appropriate.
@ydoethur may well be able to correct me, but IIRC when Victoria died there was a real issue about what to do as it had been so long since there'd be an coronation, and that the twentieth century coronation protocols were to a large extent re-invented from scratch then.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
I have a very good friend who has taught English in Beijing for the last 25 years.
Other than the European expats over there the locals really could not give the slightest shit about anything European related apparently, let alone UK.
From my understanding of how he describes the culture of a quarter of the planet, they are almost without exception totally focused on domestic issues and I would transpose that to meaning there will be no interest in whatever the news in the UK may be.
One aspect of being global superpower that they have nailed already, then?
Time for our regular reminder that China was indeed the world's pre-eminent state for about 17 of the last 20 centuries, and culturally regards itself as the centre of the world. The only periods since the time of Christ that one could reasonably describe it as anything else are the period since the European colonial powers and the United States industrialised, and prior to that perhaps the early Mongol Empire, and Rome from around the time of Augustus to the Antonine Plague.
The re-emergence of China could well be regarded as merely a return to the status quo ante.
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.
As I commented this morning the late King died in February 1952 but the coronation was not for over a year until June 1953
And I remember them both very well
Coronations take a lot of planning and historically just a year or so after accession is quite fast. George VI's coronation was within six months of his accession as it had been planned for Edward VIII who, er, no longer had need of it.
Not ‘historically.’ Recently. So, for example, Edward VII’s coronation was in 1902 (and was postponed for three months because he was ill in June) and Victoria’s in 1838, but George I was crowned on the 20th October 1714, less than three months after the death of Anne and only 32 days after landing in Britain. This is because until fairly recently the King had no powers to act until he was crowned and therefore the government had to be managed by regents until that time - e.g. Lord Burghley for James I and Margaret Beaufort for Henry VIII. This is also why Henry VII had himself crowned on the battlefield and made damn good and sure his wife (through whom he had effectively claimed the throne) wasn’t crowned Queen until several years after he had married her.
TIL, but is that an English peculiarity then? ISTR some Holy Roman Emperors taking sometimes decades to get their arses down to Rome to be crowned by the Pope.
Most Holy Roman Emperors were never crowned at all (e.g. Richard of Cornwall d. 1272) so that’s not a great parallel. Kings of France on the other hand tended to be crowned quickly on either accession or reaching adulthood - Louis XVI succeeded his grandfather on May 10th and was crowned on June 11th, despite the formidable obstacles to planning and funding a coronation which was held in Reims. Even his brother, Charles, had a gap of just eight months between succeeding in September 1824 and being crowned in May 1825 - and the reason for that delay was nobody could agree on how to pay for it.
On doing some more research, the first coronation to take place a year after succession was George III, because he was in the middle of negotiating a marriage agreement at the time and it was thought desirable to have the wedding and then a joint coronation (apparently, to save on expense) - this being made easier by the fact he was only 22 at the time he succeeded so it was considered appropriate to have an advisory council in place until his marriage. When George IV became king he had of course already been regent for nine years, and by the time he died almost all power had been transferred to Parliament anyway so his brother’s coronation had a symbolic rather than practical value.
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.
I would suspect that the criminal community is even more distrustful of the police.
Really? In Gloucestershire the criminal community were the one group who really trusted them.
Everyone else knew that they were crooks only out for themselves and knew to avoid them at all costs.
Staffs aren’t as bad, in my (fortunately limited) experience.
Please refer too them as the Legally Challenged Community. Criminal is so pejorative.
At school I attended a conference where someone genuinely did say they did not believe in the term criminal. I don't recall if they had an alternative, or just wanted people to use some clunky descriptor like Citizen in Trouble or something.
I had some conversations, a while ago, with some lawyers of the reforming type. They were all fired up for such terminology - their view of the criminal justice system was that all minor crimes should be abolished. Shoplifters, petty thieves etc.
The interesting thing was how pejorative they were to the victims - who apparently didn't understand the damage they were doing to the shambolic lives of the petty criminals by vindictively pursuing prosecution.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
Well you know my views on this. I think we’re getting a steady drip of statements, leaks and confirmations on this until at some point in the not distant future the US President gives a speech that people finally take notice of. Doubt it’s this first report to Congress that triggers, I suspect the dusty CIA disclosure manual calls for a more gradual reveal than that. But I could be wrong.
I used to wonder whether something like that was really going on, but surely Trump would have blabbed it about five minutes after his inauguration if it was.
I have entertained similar thoughts recently. Odd rumours....
Yes but Trump did. How do you think this started. People just weren’t paying attention because covid. Step 1 isn’t a big speech from the White House. It’s a softening up. The without comment video release from the Pentagon. The comments from not one but two recently retired CIA directors. And the ex National Intelligence Director. And any number of senior senators past and present from both sides.
Step 2 is the factual risk assessment process by Congress. Which is underway.
I don’t know what other steps there are but I’m now almost certain this ends with Biden or his successor giving the big speech.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
Well you know my views on this. I think we’re getting a steady drip of statements, leaks and confirmations on this until at some point in the not distant future the US President gives a speech that people finally take notice of. Doubt it’s this first report to Congress that triggers, I suspect the dusty CIA disclosure manual calls for a more gradual reveal than that. But I could be wrong.
I used to wonder whether something like that was really going on, but surely Trump would have blabbed it about five minutes after his inauguration if it was.
I have entertained similar thoughts recently. Odd rumours....
Just read that stark New Yorker article about China, Uighurs and state surveillance by technology. It is 1984, but more sophisticated and sinister, and it is here
There are even echoes of Nazism. This bit struck me:
"In some cases, officials pursued an odd tactic [against Uighur buildings]: miniaturization. In 2018, the grand gatehouse of a mosque in the town of Kargilik was covered with a banner proclaiming, “Love the Party, love the country.” Then the structure was dismantled and rebuilt as an ersatz version of itself, at a quarter the size."
This is racist mockery as a state policy. The Nazis did something like this to Jews in occupied countries, they took Jewish tombstones and turned them into paving stones, so Jews had to walk and drive over them. They used other tombstones to build walls around the ghetto in Krakow
China is a dystopian autocracy, marrying elements of the Khmer Rouge and Nazism, with the economic and technological power of the USA. Terrifying.
This is why we need to be wary of QR codes and their accoutrements.
You got to feel for a country like Hong Kong. They have gone from English Liberty and Common Law.... to this. In a couple of years. Fuck
I wonder if I will ever travel in Hong Kong or China again.
Another scary thought is what China could do with a technology like GPT3 (or 4 or 5). They will get it.
On the other hand we could always use it against THEM, I suppose
When I went to China a few years ago I didn't spring for the extra amount to have a few days in Hong Kong. Wish I had now - sure, I can still go, but it probably won't feel the same as it would have then.
Shame. It was an absolutely marvellous city. Incredible energy, food, pzazz, girls, a Singapore on speed.
And the view of Hong Kong Island at night from Tsim Sha Tsui - peerless. Better than NYC for a sense of electrifying modernity
However, I really think the operative would is "was". Talking to a China-expert friend the other day (goes there all the time, does biz) he felt it would now decline quite fast, as people refuse to work there, or even visit
Just read that stark New Yorker article about China, Uighurs and state surveillance by technology. It is 1984, but more sophisticated and sinister, and it is here
There are even echoes of Nazism. This bit struck me:
"In some cases, officials pursued an odd tactic [against Uighur buildings]: miniaturization. In 2018, the grand gatehouse of a mosque in the town of Kargilik was covered with a banner proclaiming, “Love the Party, love the country.” Then the structure was dismantled and rebuilt as an ersatz version of itself, at a quarter the size."
This is racist mockery as a state policy. The Nazis did something like this to Jews in occupied countries, they took Jewish tombstones and turned them into paving stones, so Jews had to walk and drive over them. They used other tombstones to build walls around the ghetto in Krakow
China is a dystopian autocracy, marrying elements of the Khmer Rouge and Nazism, with the economic and technological power of the USA. Terrifying.
This is why we need to be wary of QR codes and their accoutrements.
You got to feel for a country like Hong Kong. They have gone from English Liberty and Common Law.... to this. In a couple of years. Fuck
I wonder if I will ever travel in Hong Kong or China again.
Another scary thought is what China could do with a technology like GPT3 (or 4 or 5). They will get it.
On the other hand we could always use it against THEM, I suppose
When I went to China a few years ago I didn't spring for the extra amount to have a few days in Hong Kong. Wish I had now - sure, I can still go, but it probably won't feel the same as it would have then.
It is still a great city I'd imagine - some of the things I like about it not even the CCP can ruin.
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.
As I commented this morning the late King died in February 1952 but the coronation was not for over a year until June 1953
And I remember them both very well
Coronations take a lot of planning and historically just a year or so after accession is quite fast. George VI's coronation was within six months of his accession as it had been planned for Edward VIII who, er, no longer had need of it.
I've heard this said before, but is it really the planning that takes all that time, or the desire to have a period of mourning and not to rush after the death of the previous monarch?
I mean, I know these are complex events, but there must surely have been enormous amounts of planning work already, and I struggle to believe a further year is really needed as opposed to simply being deemed appropriate.
@ydoethur may well be able to correct me, but IIRC when Victoria died there was a real issue about what to do as it had been so long since there'd be an coronation, and that the twentieth century coronation protocols were to a large extent re-invented from scratch then.
Not true. In fact, there had been two in the previous twenty years. There was one for William in 1831, but at his insistence it was very low-key (it cost one-eighth of what George IV’s had cost in 1821).
However, it was the first time a queen had been crowned since 1702, and the first time an unmarried monarch had been crowned since 1649 (in England, keep going back to 1625).I don’t know whether that had a bearing on the need to rewrite protocols. Not that George IV allowed his wife to attend his coronation anyway...
Edit - apologies, I misread your post. I bought you said ‘succeeded’ not died. Disregard that.
It was rewritten when she died to reflect all sorts of things, not least the fact her successor was also Emperor of India which she only became in 1876.
Just read that stark New Yorker article about China, Uighurs and state surveillance by technology. It is 1984, but more sophisticated and sinister, and it is here
There are even echoes of Nazism. This bit struck me:
"In some cases, officials pursued an odd tactic [against Uighur buildings]: miniaturization. In 2018, the grand gatehouse of a mosque in the town of Kargilik was covered with a banner proclaiming, “Love the Party, love the country.” Then the structure was dismantled and rebuilt as an ersatz version of itself, at a quarter the size."
This is racist mockery as a state policy. The Nazis did something like this to Jews in occupied countries, they took Jewish tombstones and turned them into paving stones, so Jews had to walk and drive over them. They used other tombstones to build walls around the ghetto in Krakow
China is a dystopian autocracy, marrying elements of the Khmer Rouge and Nazism, with the economic and technological power of the USA. Terrifying.
This is why we need to be wary of QR codes and their accoutrements.
You got to feel for a country like Hong Kong. They have gone from English Liberty and Common Law.... to this. In a couple of years. Fuck
I wonder if I will ever travel in Hong Kong or China again.
Another scary thought is what China could do with a technology like GPT3 (or 4 or 5). They will get it.
On the other hand we could always use it against THEM, I suppose
When I went to China a few years ago I didn't spring for the extra amount to have a few days in Hong Kong. Wish I had now - sure, I can still go, but it probably won't feel the same as it would have then.
It is still a great city I'd imagine - some of the things I like about it not even the CCP can ruin.
I'm sure that's true, but it'd have been nice to have been before they did ruin the bits they could.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
Well you know my views on this. I think we’re getting a steady drip of statements, leaks and confirmations on this until at some point in the not distant future the US President gives a speech that people finally take notice of. Doubt it’s this first report to Congress that triggers, I suspect the dusty CIA disclosure manual calls for a more gradual reveal than that. But I could be wrong.
I used to wonder whether something like that was really going on, but surely Trump would have blabbed it about five minutes after his inauguration if it was.
I have entertained similar thoughts recently. Odd rumours....
Oh, go on, do tell.
No great insight or gossip, basically what moonshine says below, and pieced together
I'm still 95% sure we have no proof of alien life, but a few years ago I would have been 99.9% sure, and would have wagered accordingly
Just read that stark New Yorker article about China, Uighurs and state surveillance by technology. It is 1984, but more sophisticated and sinister, and it is here
There are even echoes of Nazism. This bit struck me:
"In some cases, officials pursued an odd tactic [against Uighur buildings]: miniaturization. In 2018, the grand gatehouse of a mosque in the town of Kargilik was covered with a banner proclaiming, “Love the Party, love the country.” Then the structure was dismantled and rebuilt as an ersatz version of itself, at a quarter the size."
This is racist mockery as a state policy. The Nazis did something like this to Jews in occupied countries, they took Jewish tombstones and turned them into paving stones, so Jews had to walk and drive over them. They used other tombstones to build walls around the ghetto in Krakow
China is a dystopian autocracy, marrying elements of the Khmer Rouge and Nazism, with the economic and technological power of the USA. Terrifying.
This is why we need to be wary of QR codes and their accoutrements.
You got to feel for a country like Hong Kong. They have gone from English Liberty and Common Law.... to this. In a couple of years. Fuck
I wonder if I will ever travel in Hong Kong or China again.
Another scary thought is what China could do with a technology like GPT3 (or 4 or 5). They will get it.
On the other hand we could always use it against THEM, I suppose
When I went to China a few years ago I didn't spring for the extra amount to have a few days in Hong Kong. Wish I had now - sure, I can still go, but it probably won't feel the same as it would have then.
It is still a great city I'd imagine - some of the things I like about it not even the CCP can ruin.
I'm sure that's true, but it'd have been nice to have been before they did ruin the bits they could.
The BBC has taken down its ‘click here to complain about the wall-to-wall HRH coverage’ page. Maybe offering a one-click fasttrack way to complain rather backfired?
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.
As I commented this morning the late King died in February 1952 but the coronation was not for over a year until June 1953
And I remember them both very well
Coronations take a lot of planning and historically just a year or so after accession is quite fast. George VI's coronation was within six months of his accession as it had been planned for Edward VIII who, er, no longer had need of it.
I've heard this said before, but is it really the planning that takes all that time, or the desire to have a period of mourning and not to rush after the death of the previous monarch?
I mean, I know these are complex events, but there must surely have been enormous amounts of planning work already, and I struggle to believe a further year is really needed as opposed to simply being deemed appropriate.
@ydoethur may well be able to correct me, but IIRC when Victoria died there was a real issue about what to do as it had been so long since there'd be an coronation, and that the twentieth century coronation protocols were to a large extent re-invented from scratch then.
Not true. In fact, there had been two in the previous twenty years. There was one for William in 1831, but at his insistence it was very low-key (it cost one-eighth of what George IV’s had cost in 1821).
However, it was the first time a queen had been crowned since 1702, and the first time an unmarried monarch had been crowned since 1649 (in England, keep going back to 1625).I don’t know whether that had a bearing on the need to rewrite protocols. Not that George IV allowed his wife to attend his coronation anyway...
Comments
Although I never did it, and it involved some risk, it looked to me like you could make serious money manipulating their odds.
Dunno if that’s still possible. It’s borderline fraud. Either way, smarkets business model seems to me to be parasitic and slightly scummy.
Still, Happy to use them for the odd bet at decent odds and keep my balance low.
Off the scale.
With the obligatory caveat added to make it clear you're not "woke".
I'm sure it'll test the patience of any staunch republican, but even they'll have to concede (quietly) that's valid.
It’s disturbing how dreadfully inept Ursula von der Leyen has proved, but what’s even worse is her flailing about to blame everyone else for her shortcomings. When Jean Claude Juncker kept falling over because he was pissed, while he may have lied about the reasons at least he didn’t claim anyone pushed him.
If she carries on like this in 24 months the EU will have no allies left.
The serious point is that some people like to imply or outright state anyone who is not self declared woke does not care about racial issues or even thinks there are no such issues anymore. But just like not all woke warriors are obnoxious, nor are all those anti-woke warriors in denial or obnoxious.
Many people are woke without liking that label. Others may use the label but be far less woke than they think they are (the 'clearly racist, anti-racist campaigner' problem, as I like to call it).
Everyone else knew that they were crooks only out for themselves and knew to avoid them at all costs.
Staffs aren’t as bad, in my (fortunately limited) experience.
Only the UK/Europe focused ones, such as France 24 (English), Euro News were leading with it.
The other Asian, Middle East and African channels were leading with local stories, RT was talking about the AZ vaccine.
What I'm not keen on is people doing the old simplistic virtue-signalling shtick - equating the noble aspiration of being race blind with having to pretend that we are already there.
You know what I mean.
The only bigger story would be if Greta Thunberg died.
That pisses me off.
Really.
So the only issue here is that von der Leyen is kicking up a fuss because she is a self-aggrandising fool who doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about and unnecessarily damaged relations with a regional power that was taking tentative steps back into the EU orbit.
That’s on top of her other train wrecks over Astra Zeneca and its contracts, which she lied about to cover her mistakes.
She is an accident looking for somewhere else to happen.
Highlighted the key bit for the (narrow) purposes I was pursuing.
I'll just tag @Stocky and bugger off now. Think that's best.
That's why it's different.
Sure, Betty Windsor is going to make the newspapers everywhere. But most people don’t read newspapers. It wouldn’t feature on wechat for too long. Bit like Brexit, I struggle to recall anyone in East Asia really talking about it much. They were a bit preoccupied with whether Kim was going to turn their cities to glass.
As for Greta, I’d forgotten all about her until you mentioned her name. Has she grown up and discovered what makes all the stuff?
In other good news the zoe covid numbers are dropping fast:
https://covid.joinzoe.com/data
https://twitter.com/Queen_UK/status/1380926761748283398?s=19
Other than the European expats over there the locals really could not give the slightest shit about anything European related apparently, let alone UK.
From my understanding of how he describes the culture of a quarter of the planet, they are almost without exception totally focused on domestic issues and I would transpose that to meaning there will be no interest in whatever the news in the UK may be.
The winner is the one who the public judges to have said the least of any interest or consequence.
Or to put another way, I think the death of the Queen is the most overhyped event ever in what it means for “what’s next”. It just don’t matter guv, it will be the same as the day before.
It's not our fault the Cromwells were twats!
Thankfully Radios 1, 3, 6 and 1X have now returned to broadcasting music.
The spectacle of a dedicated dance music station - DANCE MUSIC! - running an identical obituary feed to Radio 4 was beyond ludicrous.
And because it will matter to this country, and several others, in a big way, other places will officially make sure to say how much it matters to them, making it a story. Would it not being the leading item in Uruguay mean it was not, at that time, likely to be the biggest news story on the planet?
There are even echoes of Nazism. This bit struck me:
"In some cases, officials pursued an odd tactic [against Uighur buildings]: miniaturization. In 2018, the grand gatehouse of a mosque in the town of Kargilik was covered with a banner proclaiming, “Love the Party, love the country.” Then the structure was dismantled and rebuilt as an ersatz version of itself, at a quarter the size."
This is racist mockery as a state policy. The Nazis did something like this to Jews in occupied countries, they took Jewish tombstones and turned them into paving stones, so Jews had to walk and drive over them. They used other tombstones to build walls around the ghetto in Krakow
China is a dystopian autocracy, marrying elements of the Khmer Rouge and Nazism, with the economic and technological power of the USA. Terrifying.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_funerals
And in India I suspect the passing of David “Lovely Jubbly” Jason would illicit more genuine grief than the Queen among tuk tuk drivers.
I pointed out to someone, that just as they wanted X's life destroyed for "modern social crime"* Y, some people were equally angry about young Mister Gilmore.
It was an interesting moment - it produced a series of emotions, surprise, anger that their cause could be likened to the protection of the Cenotaph, surprise again at the thought that there were people who thought this way....
I mean, I know these are complex events, but there must surely have been enormous amounts of planning work already, and I struggle to believe a further year is really needed as opposed to simply being deemed appropriate.
I wonder if I will ever travel in Hong Kong or China again.
Another scary thought is what China could do with a technology like GPT3 (or 4 or 5). They will get it.
On the other hand we could always use it against THEM, I suppose
UK
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
Antigua & Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Grenada
Jamaica
Papua New Guinea
St Christopher & Nevis
St Lucia
St Vincent & The Grenadines
Solomon Islands
Tuvalu
In the Uk people will generally agree the Queen dying is very sad. “What a life. Won’t it be odd seeing Charles as King. Anyway, what’s on Netflix, the BBC have gone doo lally”.
It won’t be a cause of national introspection in the way assumed.
The re-emergence of China could well be regarded as merely a return to the status quo ante.
On doing some more research, the first coronation to take place a year after succession was George III, because he was in the middle of negotiating a marriage agreement at the time and it was thought desirable to have the wedding and then a joint coronation (apparently, to save on expense) - this being made easier by the fact he was only 22 at the time he succeeded so it was considered appropriate to have an advisory council in place until his marriage. When George IV became king he had of course already been regent for nine years, and by the time he died almost all power had been transferred to Parliament anyway so his brother’s coronation had a symbolic rather than practical value.
The interesting thing was how pejorative they were to the victims - who apparently didn't understand the damage they were doing to the shambolic lives of the petty criminals by vindictively pursuing prosecution.
Step 2 is the factual risk assessment process by Congress. Which is underway.
I don’t know what other steps there are but I’m now almost certain this ends with Biden or his successor giving the big speech.
And the view of Hong Kong Island at night from Tsim Sha Tsui - peerless. Better than NYC for a sense of electrifying modernity
However, I really think the operative would is "was". Talking to a China-expert friend the other day (goes there all the time, does biz) he felt it would now decline quite fast, as people refuse to work there, or even visit
However, it was the first time a queen had been crowned since 1702, and the first time an unmarried monarch had been crowned since 1649 (in England, keep going back to 1625).I don’t know whether that had a bearing on the need to rewrite protocols. Not that George IV allowed his wife to attend his coronation anyway...
Edit - apologies, I misread your post. I bought you said ‘succeeded’ not died. Disregard that.
It was rewritten when she died to reflect all sorts of things, not least the fact her successor was also Emperor of India which she only became in 1876.
I'm still 95% sure we have no proof of alien life, but a few years ago I would have been 99.9% sure, and would have wagered accordingly
Why didn’t the BBC just use Beeb 1 for the rolling obituary?