Howdy, Stranger!

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

Parliament must return in person and permanently – politicalbetting.com

1456810

Comments

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,421

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
    There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,109
    IanB2 said:

    CNN: BBC deluged with complaints over wall-to-wall Prince Philip coverage

    Royalists will now be appalled no Prince Philip special coverage on any mainstream channel.

    The Hit List on BBC1, Rugby League on BBC2, Catchphrase Celebrity Special on ITV, the news followed by Grand Designs on C4 and Susan Calman's Grand Day Out on C5
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    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.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang

    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
    One would be mad to set foot in Chinese-controlled territory. Too much risk of being taken hostage, as has happened to some Canadians.

    It's the same as Iran. Essentially a despotism.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,350
    Had a great laugh at the state of the unionists on there, what a bunch of sad losers.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486
    IanB2 said:

    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?

    Lots of mates on my WhatsApp group were complaining last night that their Friday night tunes had been cancelled. No Annie Mac on 1, no Steve Lamaque on 6, no Sian Anderson on 1X.

    Yet I was assured on PB that the response was reasonable.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    rpjs said:

    ydoethur said:

    rpjs said:

    rpjs said:

    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...
    I meant when Edward VII was crowned.
    Yes, my apologies, I misread it. Have edited my post above with further information. Basically, yes there had been a gap but don’t forget they were also crowning him for a different role - King of the United Kingdom and Emperor of India.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,421

    HYUFD said:
    The Greens giving it a good go. Everyone else outside that top four bit-part players.
    Didn't realise TUSC were still going. Would have thought the far-left would have had a newer vehicle by now.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413
    IanB2 said:

    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?

    If only they would put a fast track for BBC comedy. It's shit.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,588
    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    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.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang

    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
    I've visited Hong Kong 3 times. In 2005 for 2 days, 2008 for 6 days, and 2014 for a few hours (on the way back from Bangkok, and decided it would be stupid to spend 8 hours at the airport when I could have another look at the city).

    Each time I thought it was possibly the greatest place in the world. It's horrible to think what's happening to it now.
  • ydoethur said:

    rpjs said:

    rpjs said:

    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...
    If you re-read RPJS's post, the reference was to when Victoria died (i.e. Edward VII's coronation). I think you've read it as a question about her coronation.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,617
    Leon said:

    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.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang

    The ratio of an individual or organisation's criticism of Israeli treatment of Palestinians compared to their criticism of Chinese treatment of Uighers is probably a good measure of their antisemitism.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,350
    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    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.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang

    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
    They were a British colony , bought on a lease which ran out.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126
    HYUFD said:
    Number of Candidates Being Stood by Each Party in #LE2021:

    CON: 4,491
    LAB: 4,309
    LDM: 3,417
    GRN: 2,707
    RFM: 271
    TUSC: 232
    UKIP: 121
    FAL: 94
    SDP: 66
    FBM: 53
    YSP: 42
    LIB: 37
    WPGB: 29
    HER: 26
    WEP: 20
    MK: 19
    VPP: 18
    NEP: 17
    LBT: 10
    MRLP: 10


    Seriously weak showing by RefUK. What pressure can they put on anyone if they cannot even put up a half decent number of candidates.

    As Black Rook says, the Greens are really going for it. They've certainly also done well in some of my area at finding candidates for town councils, when even the big three appear to have struggled. If the Greens are getting people engaged with local democracy all the better.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,215
    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
  • Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,429
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    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.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang

    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
    I've visited Hong Kong 3 times. In 2005 for 2 days, 2008 for 6 days, and 2014 for a few hours (on the way back from Bangkok, and decided it would be stupid to spend 8 hours at the airport when I could have another look at the city).

    Each time I thought it was possibly the greatest place in the world. It's horrible to think what's happening to it now.
    Yeah, it had everything. Beauty, dynamism, power, wealth, optimism, gifted people, quite fantastic seafood. And, most crucially of all, English freedom.

    One of the few flaws is the climate. Very humid in summer

    Yet now the jackboot of Beijing. Sad
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited April 2021
    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    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.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang

    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
    They were a British colony , bought on a lease which ran out.
    In the interests of pedantry, about half of it was bought on a lease which ran out. But Deng said he wanted the whole lot back, and would take it by force if he wasn’t given it peacefully. There wasn’t anything the British could do about that so they negotiated the ‘one country, two systems’ agreement instead.

    This would have worked if the Chinese government could be trusted. Unfortunately, when their system cracked and resulted in them being led by an unstable bloodthirsty lunatic like Xi, it was always going to end badly.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
  • Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487
    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
    Yes, but that's because you're a republican and don't want it to be.

    It doesn't mean you're right.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,205

    Leon said:

    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.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang

    The ratio of an individual or organisation's criticism of Israeli treatment of Palestinians compared to their criticism of Chinese treatment of Uighers is probably a good measure of their antisemitism.
    Yes. Very possibly. A sky high ratio being the tell.

    And what would the dead opposite signify iyo?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487
    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    You can be progressive without being Progressive, if you know what I mean.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,429
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    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.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang

    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
    They were a British colony , bought on a lease which ran out.
    In the interests of pedantry, about half of it was bought on a lease which ran out. But Deng said he wanted the whole lot back, and would take it by force if he wasn’t given it peacefully. There wasn’t anything the British could do about that so they negotiated the ‘one country, two systems’ agreement instead.

    This would have worked if the Chinese government could be trusted. Unfortunately, when their system cracked and resulted in them being led by an unstable bloodthirsty lunatic like Xi, it was always going to end badly.
    We need the aliens to unite with GPT3 to help us push back the Chinese, retake Hong Kong, and then together we can all come up with a new name for BAME. Sorted

    OK I'm off to buy some dinner
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,588
    Radio 3 is playing "Two English Idylls" by George Butterworth. The sort of thing Prince Philip would have probably absolutely...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    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.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang

    The ratio of an individual or organisation's criticism of Israeli treatment of Palestinians compared to their criticism of Chinese treatment of Uighers is probably a good measure of their antisemitism.
    Yes. Very possibly. A sky high ratio being the tell.

    And what would the dead opposite signify iyo?
    An awkward paradox, as in that particular case it cannot signify Islamophobia.
  • Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
    There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
    Yes indeed.

    It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.

    I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,083
    edited April 2021

    IanB2 said:

    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?

    Lots of mates on my WhatsApp group were complaining last night that their Friday night tunes had been cancelled. No Annie Mac on 1, no Steve Lamaque on 6, no Sian Anderson on 1X.

    Yet I was assured on PB that the response was reasonable.
    Some of us have been saying for a long time the BBC is totally out of touch with what the consumer wants.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,617
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    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.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang

    The ratio of an individual or organisation's criticism of Israeli treatment of Palestinians compared to their criticism of Chinese treatment of Uighers is probably a good measure of their antisemitism.
    Yes. Very possibly. A sky high ratio being the tell.

    And what would the dead opposite signify iyo?
    Hostility to China.

    Which, especially given the last year, has rather more sense to it than hostility to Israel.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,410
    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    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.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang

    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
    I've visited Hong Kong 3 times. In 2005 for 2 days, 2008 for 6 days, and 2014 for a few hours (on the way back from Bangkok, and decided it would be stupid to spend 8 hours at the airport when I could have another look at the city).

    Each time I thought it was possibly the greatest place in the world. It's horrible to think what's happening to it now.
    Yeah, it had everything. Beauty, dynamism, power, wealth, optimism, gifted people, quite fantastic seafood. And, most crucially of all, English freedom.

    One of the few flaws is the climate. Very humid in summer

    Yet now the jackboot of Beijing. Sad
    According to the Taiwanese combined the innovative dynamism of the British with the good manners of the Chinese.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
    There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
    Yes indeed.

    It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.

    I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
    If he lives long enough.

    That sounds a bit morbid, but it is a point, isn’t it?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,996
    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    CNN: BBC deluged with complaints over wall-to-wall Prince Philip coverage

    Royalists will now be appalled no Prince Philip special coverage on any mainstream channel.

    The Hit List on BBC1, Rugby League on BBC2, Catchphrase Celebrity Special on ITV, the news followed by Grand Designs on C4 and Susan Calman's Grand Day Out on C5
    Today’s TV schedule:
    12pm - Homes Under the Philip
    1pm - A Philip in the Sun
    2pm - Come Dine with Philip
    3pm - Escape to the Philip
    4pm - Tiphiliping Point
    5pm - 5 O’Clock Philip
    6pm - Philip & Philip’s Saturday Night Takeaway
    9pm - Only Fools and Philip
    11pm - Match of the Philip
    12am - Philip Does Dallas
    Line of Philip tomorrow night.

    Which puts me in mind of:

    https://tinyurl.com/2hxuv47y
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,350

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
    There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
    Yes indeed.

    It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.

    I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
    Will not make a blind bit of difference, they are only window dressing , so how could they lead to an unstable period.
  • Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487
    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.

    Not just for us, but for the World.

    You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.

    Not the WORLD. C'mon.
    She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
    Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
    When the aliens land, they still should only devote BBC1 to covering it. There will still be people expecting to see Masterchef on BBC2.
    You've done a funny!

    I'm impressed.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
    Yes, but that's because you're a republican and don't want it to be.

    It doesn't mean you're right.
    No I’m not. That’s exactly why I say it.

    Any good Republican hopes the queen’s passing triggers an existential bout of national self doubt that ends with the downfall of the monarchy.

    A monarchist thinks it will be Keep Calm and Carry On. I don’t have to prostrate myself in grief to be a monarchist.
  • HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    CNN: BBC deluged with complaints over wall-to-wall Prince Philip coverage

    Royalists will now be appalled no Prince Philip special coverage on any mainstream channel.

    The Hit List on BBC1, Rugby League on BBC2, Catchphrase Celebrity Special on ITV, the news followed by Grand Designs on C4 and Susan Calman's Grand Day Out on C5
    Hi HYUFD

    A simple I was wrong on television coverage is now required from you and you know what, admitting you are wrong on occasions is very good for the soul
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413
    edited April 2021

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,893
    Evening all :)

    On topic, the Government announcement last week ending the right of local authorities to hold decision making meetings remotely (by not adding the exemption to the renewed Covid legislation) had the Perhaps predictable effect of doing the one thing central Government does so well - uniting local Government in opposition.

    Such left-wing firebrand radical authorities as Surrey and Hertfordshire have led the opposition which led to a court challenge instigated by those well known Marxists, the Local Government Association seeking a judicial review of the earlier decision.

    This led to that well- known doyen of firm inflexibility, Robert Jenrick, to announce he was going to support the legal challenge against his own Government.

    Okay - interesting to see where this goes.

    Now, @david_herdson will argue, with some conviction, Epping Forest Town Hall isn't Westminster and it's fair to say the politics of local Government and Westminster are two very different beasts but I can't agree with the principle (however lofty) that somehow, in terms of social distancing and the like, Westminster can and should be exempt.

    Some local authority meetings in lockdown have been entertaining, the vast majority are however as dull remotely as they are in person. Once restrictions are lifted, it should be up to each Council how it wishes to conduct its meetings - there's an argument for full Council meetings to be held in person but as long as the public has the same rights of access to remote meetings as it does to physical meetings I don't see why remote meetings cannot continue.

    Further, I'd argue the time and cost of attending a possibly distant Town or Shire Hall might put some off getting more involved in local politics - offsetting that might encourage more participation.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487
    Leon said:

    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.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang

    But, they've *just* moved too early - so now we have a chance to do something about it.

    If they'd waited another 10 years we'd have been too wrapped into them to ever escape; like the supercomputer that sucks people in and cyborgs them in Superman 3.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    IanB2 said:

    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?

    Lots of mates on my WhatsApp group were complaining last night that their Friday night tunes had been cancelled. No Annie Mac on 1, no Steve Lamaque on 6, no Sian Anderson on 1X.

    Yet I was assured on PB that the response was reasonable.
    Some of us have been saying for a long time the BBC is totally out of touch with what the consumer wants.
    There's nothing more boring on PB than an anti-BBC rout. It has existed for as long as it has because there's never been the political will to abolish it.
  • Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,893
    Evening again all :)

    Interesting to see the relatively small decline in BBC viewing figures last evening compared to the BBC2 and ITV numbers.

    I suspect it illustrates, for all the anti-BBC vitriol espoused by some on here on a regular basis, at times of national drama or emergency, there's an almost instinctive, nay visceral, desire to turn back to the comforting reliable tones of Auntie.
  • Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    Further to that.

    The family that made it through the war were occupied by the English.

    Those who remained in Germany absolutely hated the English until the day they died given how badly they felt the English treated them in the months and years after the war ended.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,410
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    On topic, the Government announcement last week ending the right of local authorities to hold decision making meetings remotely (by not adding the exemption to the renewed Covid legislation) had the Perhaps predictable effect of doing the one thing central Government does so well - uniting local Government in opposition.

    Such left-wing firebrand radical authorities as Surrey and Hertfordshire have led the opposition which led to a court challenge instigated by those well known Marxists, the Local Government Association seeking a judicial review of the earlier decision.

    This led to that well- known doyen of firm inflexibility, Robert Jenrick, to announce he was going to support the legal challenge against his own Government.

    Okay - interesting to see where this goes.

    Now, @david_herdson will argue, with some conviction, Epping Forest Town Hall isn't Westminster and it's fair to say the politics of local Government and Westminster are two very different beasts but I can't agree with the principle (however lofty) that somehow, in terms of social distancing and the like, Westminster can and should be exempt.

    Some local authority meetings in lockdown have been entertaining, the vast majority are however as dull remotely as they are in person. Once restrictions are lifted, it should be up to each Council how it wishes to conduct its meetings - there's an argument for full Council meetings to be held in person but as long as the public has the same rights of access to remote meetings as it does to physical meetings I don't see why remote meetings cannot continue.

    Further, I'd argue the time and cost of attending a possibly distant Town or Shire Hall might put some off getting more involved in local politics - offsetting that might encourage more participation.

    You should see the ages of our Parish Council. They aren't happy at the suggestion they now have to leave their houses.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413
    edited April 2021

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,770

    IanB2 said:

    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?

    Lots of mates on my WhatsApp group were complaining last night that their Friday night tunes had been cancelled. No Annie Mac on 1, no Steve Lamaque on 6, no Sian Anderson on 1X.

    Yet I was assured on PB that the response was reasonable.
    Some of us have been saying for a long time the BBC is totally out of touch with what the consumer wants.
    There's nothing more boring on PB than an anti-BBC rout. It has existed for as long as it has because there's never been the political will to abolish it.
    I'm delighted that you're playing the game again. I loved your 'first' the other day.

    At best the BBC is troubled. However it is my personal lifeline.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,410

    Tres said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    CNN: BBC deluged with complaints over wall-to-wall Prince Philip coverage

    Royalists will now be appalled no Prince Philip special coverage on any mainstream channel.

    The Hit List on BBC1, Rugby League on BBC2, Catchphrase Celebrity Special on ITV, the news followed by Grand Designs on C4 and Susan Calman's Grand Day Out on C5
    Today’s TV schedule:
    12pm - Homes Under the Philip
    1pm - A Philip in the Sun
    2pm - Come Dine with Philip
    3pm - Escape to the Philip
    4pm - Tiphiliping Point
    5pm - 5 O’Clock Philip
    6pm - Philip & Philip’s Saturday Night Takeaway
    9pm - Only Fools and Philip
    11pm - Match of the Philip
    12am - Philip Does Dallas
    Line of Philip tomorrow night.

    Which puts me in mind of:

    https://tinyurl.com/2hxuv47y
    You've given me an idea of who might turn out to be H.
    Is it short for HRH???
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    Further to that.

    The family that made it through the war were occupied by the English.

    Those who remained in Germany absolutely hated the English until the day they died given how badly they felt the English treated them in the months and years after the war ended.
    Where they from East Prussia?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    On topic, the Government announcement last week ending the right of local authorities to hold decision making meetings remotely (by not adding the exemption to the renewed Covid legislation) had the Perhaps predictable effect of doing the one thing central Government does so well - uniting local Government in opposition.

    Such left-wing firebrand radical authorities as Surrey and Hertfordshire have led the opposition which led to a court challenge instigated by those well known Marxists, the Local Government Association seeking a judicial review of the earlier decision.

    This led to that well- known doyen of firm inflexibility, Robert Jenrick, to announce he was going to support the legal challenge against his own Government.

    Okay - interesting to see where this goes.

    Now, @david_herdson will argue, with some conviction, Epping Forest Town Hall isn't Westminster and it's fair to say the politics of local Government and Westminster are two very different beasts but I can't agree with the principle (however lofty) that somehow, in terms of social distancing and the like, Westminster can and should be exempt.

    Some local authority meetings in lockdown have been entertaining, the vast majority are however as dull remotely as they are in person. Once restrictions are lifted, it should be up to each Council how it wishes to conduct its meetings - there's an argument for full Council meetings to be held in person but as long as the public has the same rights of access to remote meetings as it does to physical meetings I don't see why remote meetings cannot continue.

    Further, I'd argue the time and cost of attending a possibly distant Town or Shire Hall might put some off getting more involved in local politics - offsetting that might encourage more participation.

    You should see the ages of our Parish Council. They aren't happy at the suggestion they now have to leave their houses.
    I hope Handforth don’t go back to meeting in person. Comedy gold like that doesn’t come round too often.

    Plus, there might be issues under the Public Order and Offences Against the Person Acts.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,380

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Pretty sedentary game I would have thought, cattle and chickens.
  • Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
    other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.

    Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,533

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    She sounds lovely.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,410
    "I can see your Voice" with Paddy McGuinness has just come on.
    Could a kind soul point me to a Prince Philip tribute show?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,109

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    CNN: BBC deluged with complaints over wall-to-wall Prince Philip coverage

    Royalists will now be appalled no Prince Philip special coverage on any mainstream channel.

    The Hit List on BBC1, Rugby League on BBC2, Catchphrase Celebrity Special on ITV, the news followed by Grand Designs on C4 and Susan Calman's Grand Day Out on C5
    Hi HYUFD

    A simple I was wrong on television coverage is now required from you and you know what, admitting you are wrong on occasions is very good for the soul
    I never said the funeral would definitely not be covered by TV, I said it might not even be televised, so no apology necessary.

    However I still think it would have made more sense to have a televised State Memorial Service later in the year post Covid restrictions but that is up to them.

    The service next week will be just 30 attendees, almost all royal family plus the PM and Archbishop of Canterbury who will do the service, an organist and no more than 8 in the choir
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,823
    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
    There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
    Yes indeed.

    It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.

    I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
    If he lives long enough.

    That sounds a bit morbid, but it is a point, isn’t it?
    I did some sums on this. I can't remember the details, but the chance of the queen outliving Charles starting from where they are now and based on average life expectancies from their current ages is small but not negligible. Three percent or thereabouts, I think.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    CNN: BBC deluged with complaints over wall-to-wall Prince Philip coverage

    Royalists will now be appalled no Prince Philip special coverage on any mainstream channel.

    The Hit List on BBC1, Rugby League on BBC2, Catchphrase Celebrity Special on ITV, the news followed by Grand Designs on C4 and Susan Calman's Grand Day Out on C5
    Hi HYUFD

    A simple I was wrong on television coverage is now required from you and you know what, admitting you are wrong on occasions is very good for the soul
    I never said the funeral would definitely not be covered by TV, I said it might not even be televised, so no apology necessary.

    However I still think it would have made more sense to have a televised State Memorial Service later in the year post Covid restrictions but that is up to them.

    The service next week will be just 30 attendees, almost all royal family plus the PM and Archbishop of Canterbury who will do the service, an organist and no more than 8 in the choir
    Why would the PM be there? And if he is, why not the Leader of the Opposition as well?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,126

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    CNN: BBC deluged with complaints over wall-to-wall Prince Philip coverage

    Royalists will now be appalled no Prince Philip special coverage on any mainstream channel.

    The Hit List on BBC1, Rugby League on BBC2, Catchphrase Celebrity Special on ITV, the news followed by Grand Designs on C4 and Susan Calman's Grand Day Out on C5
    Hi HYUFD

    A simple I was wrong on television coverage is now required from you and you know what, admitting you are wrong on occasions is very good for the soul
    We all know HYUFD doesn't like to say he was wrong, but I have to say on this occasion I'd say he was right that it was speculation rather than a definitive prediction.
  • Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    Further to that.

    The family that made it through the war were occupied by the English.

    Those who remained in Germany absolutely hated the English until the day they died given how badly they felt the English treated them in the months and years after the war ended.
    Where they from East Prussia?
    Genuinely cannot remember.

    Always say Wilhelmshaven, but that is where I was brought up.

    They had a Polish slave who helped around their property, during the war they were brainwashed to think that Polish slaves were happy with their lives as they had been given the chance to live in the heart of the Reich.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    CNN: BBC deluged with complaints over wall-to-wall Prince Philip coverage

    Royalists will now be appalled no Prince Philip special coverage on any mainstream channel.

    The Hit List on BBC1, Rugby League on BBC2, Catchphrase Celebrity Special on ITV, the news followed by Grand Designs on C4 and Susan Calman's Grand Day Out on C5
    Hi HYUFD

    A simple I was wrong on television coverage is now required from you and you know what, admitting you are wrong on occasions is very good for the soul
    We all know HYUFD doesn't like to say he was wrong
    Congratulations for making the understatement of the 21st century so far. :smile:
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,215
    .

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    He gave that up in favour of campaigning to save them.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,533
    Campaigning resumes after tributes conclude on Monday (they might go on a bit so I imagine that means Tuesday), with a pause next Saturday during the funeral.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    On topic, the Government announcement last week ending the right of local authorities to hold decision making meetings remotely (by not adding the exemption to the renewed Covid legislation) had the Perhaps predictable effect of doing the one thing central Government does so well - uniting local Government in opposition.

    Such left-wing firebrand radical authorities as Surrey and Hertfordshire have led the opposition which led to a court challenge instigated by those well known Marxists, the Local Government Association seeking a judicial review of the earlier decision.

    This led to that well- known doyen of firm inflexibility, Robert Jenrick, to announce he was going to support the legal challenge against his own Government.

    Okay - interesting to see where this goes.

    Now, @david_herdson will argue, with some conviction, Epping Forest Town Hall isn't Westminster and it's fair to say the politics of local Government and Westminster are two very different beasts but I can't agree with the principle (however lofty) that somehow, in terms of social distancing and the like, Westminster can and should be exempt.

    Some local authority meetings in lockdown have been entertaining, the vast majority are however as dull remotely as they are in person. Once restrictions are lifted, it should be up to each Council how it wishes to conduct its meetings - there's an argument for full Council meetings to be held in person but as long as the public has the same rights of access to remote meetings as it does to physical meetings I don't see why remote meetings cannot continue.

    Further, I'd argue the time and cost of attending a possibly distant Town or Shire Hall might put some off getting more involved in local politics - offsetting that might encourage more participation.

    You should see the ages of our Parish Council. They aren't happy at the suggestion they now have to leave their houses.
    Trouble is, some of them may still be trembling like a leaf at the prospect of contact with the outside world this time next year.

    OK, one can perhaps plausibly argue that attempts to get councillors back to proper meetings have jumped the gun a little, but the point at which they really ought to be doing so is not that far away now. Assuming that the vaccination timetable proceeds as planned, by August Bank Holiday all adults should've had at least one jab plus the requisite time for it to work. After that there's no excuse for trying to keep hobbling along doing politics on Zoom.

    Anybody who's still too frightened to leave the house after that can quit.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,109

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
    There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
    Yes indeed.

    It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.

    I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
    13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.

    Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,883

    IanB2 said:

    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?

    Lots of mates on my WhatsApp group were complaining last night that their Friday night tunes had been cancelled. No Annie Mac on 1, no Steve Lamaque on 6, no Sian Anderson on 1X.

    Yet I was assured on PB that the response was reasonable.
    OMG, I hope your mates never have to suffer a real problem like a pandemic or something!!. Talk about first world problems. I don't have any problem with clearing the schedules on a day when someone important dies. The BBC is our Naional broadcaster so I would expect it. Even if it was HMG, Phillip or even Boris!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
    other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.

    Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
    Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
  • Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
    other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.

    Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
    Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
    He killed sentient animals for fun.

    You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,083
    dixiedean said:

    "I can see your Voice" with Paddy McGuinness has just come on.
    Could a kind soul point me to a Prince Philip tribute show?

    Another crap Paddy McGuinness show, sums up terrestrial tv these days.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,215

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not really.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    dixiedean said:

    "I can see your Voice" with Paddy McGuinness has just come on.
    Could a kind soul point me to a Prince Philip tribute show?

    Next Prince Philip tribute is on Channel 4, but not until 8pm.

    You could always try iPlayer? :smiley:
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,410

    dixiedean said:

    "I can see your Voice" with Paddy McGuinness has just come on.
    Could a kind soul point me to a Prince Philip tribute show?

    Another crap Paddy McGuinness show, sums up terrestrial tv these days.
    Actually. I am watching it.
    Slack jawed in admiration at the cojones of whoever pitched the idea.
    It really is too bizarre for words. No description could possibly do it justice.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,109
    edited April 2021
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    CNN: BBC deluged with complaints over wall-to-wall Prince Philip coverage

    Royalists will now be appalled no Prince Philip special coverage on any mainstream channel.

    The Hit List on BBC1, Rugby League on BBC2, Catchphrase Celebrity Special on ITV, the news followed by Grand Designs on C4 and Susan Calman's Grand Day Out on C5
    Hi HYUFD

    A simple I was wrong on television coverage is now required from you and you know what, admitting you are wrong on occasions is very good for the soul
    I never said the funeral would definitely not be covered by TV, I said it might not even be televised, so no apology necessary.

    However I still think it would have made more sense to have a televised State Memorial Service later in the year post Covid restrictions but that is up to them.

    The service next week will be just 30 attendees, almost all royal family plus the PM and Archbishop of Canterbury who will do the service, an organist and no more than 8 in the choir
    Why would the PM be there? And if he is, why not the Leader of the Opposition as well?
    The Daily Mail has the invited funeral attendees as likely to be The Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, Princess Anne and her husband, the Duke of York and Beatrice and Eugenie and their husbands, the Earl and Countess of Wessex and their 2 children, Zara and Mike Tindall, the Duke of Sussex, Princess Alexandra, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, the Earl of Snowdon and Lady Sarah Chatto and the Duke's Private Secretary (it had also earlier speculated the PM could take the last place or the Admiral of the Fleet, the PM has now declined to create a space for a member of the royal family).

    That is the 30, nobody else will be invited or admitted

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9457035/Prince-Philips-funeral-Saturday-Meghan-advised-doctors-not-travel.html

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
    other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.

    Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
    Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
    He killed sentient animals for fun.

    You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
    That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,380
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    CNN: BBC deluged with complaints over wall-to-wall Prince Philip coverage

    Royalists will now be appalled no Prince Philip special coverage on any mainstream channel.

    The Hit List on BBC1, Rugby League on BBC2, Catchphrase Celebrity Special on ITV, the news followed by Grand Designs on C4 and Susan Calman's Grand Day Out on C5
    Hi HYUFD

    A simple I was wrong on television coverage is now required from you and you know what, admitting you are wrong on occasions is very good for the soul
    I never said the funeral would definitely not be covered by TV, I said it might not even be televised, so no apology necessary.

    However I still think it would have made more sense to have a televised State Memorial Service later in the year post Covid restrictions but that is up to them.

    The service next week will be just 30 attendees, almost all royal family plus the PM and Archbishop of Canterbury who will do the service, an organist and no more than 8 in the choir
    Why would the PM be there? And if he is, why not the Leader of the Opposition as well?
    It's not really Johnson's kind of event. I am struggling to see how a funeral lends itself to the wearing of a hi-viz coat. Got it! Meeting the grave diggers before the service. Johnson could get to drive a JCB too.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Probably a boost to the Conservatives to have elections close to the passing of a Royal Family member - Whe people are discussing the results in four years or whenever the next lot of these elections are, they should bear this in mind perhaps?

    The Death boost, following the vaccine boost, who'dve thought it?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,083
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    "I can see your Voice" with Paddy McGuinness has just come on.
    Could a kind soul point me to a Prince Philip tribute show?

    Another crap Paddy McGuinness show, sums up terrestrial tv these days.
    Actually. I am watching it.
    Slack jawed in admiration at the cojones of whoever pitched the idea.
    It really is too bizarre for words. No description could possibly do it justice.
    Didn't they can that Gordon Ramsey show, the one nobody, including him, understood?
  • Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
    other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.

    Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
    Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
    He killed sentient animals for fun.

    You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
    That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
    Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.

    Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
    other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.

    Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
    Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
    He killed sentient animals for fun.

    You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
    As long as those sentient animals weren't humans, I doubt it tells us very much at all.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    "I can see your Voice" with Paddy McGuinness has just come on.
    Could a kind soul point me to a Prince Philip tribute show?

    Another crap Paddy McGuinness show, sums up terrestrial tv these days.
    Actually. I am watching it.
    Slack jawed in admiration at the cojones of whoever pitched the idea.
    It really is too bizarre for words. No description could possibly do it justice.
    You'll be asking for more prince philip coverage to liven the evening up
  • Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
    other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.

    Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
    Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
    He killed sentient animals for fun.

    You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
    As long as those sentient animals weren't humans, I doubt it tells us very much at all.
    It tells us a very lot about how he cared for non human animals.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    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.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang

    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
    One would be mad to set foot in Chinese-controlled territory. Too much risk of being taken hostage, as has happened to some Canadians.

    It's the same as Iran. Essentially a despotism.
    China isn’t one thing or the other. The guiding force of its governance structure is ethno nationalism which gives me the creeps. And this seeps down into chunks of civil society in a way that can be quite jarring and unpleasant even on a brief visit.

    But... there are some fascinating aspects. The small town Del Boys now in charge of self made billion dollar empires that run rings round the West. The feel of permanence from a coherent society so old. The glitz. The ambition. The wonder of more than a billion people in relative order. The internationalised multi lingual youth, the strangers who drink and joke with you across language barriers like a lost friend from their hometown that forgot how to speak Mandarin.

    But those things are also of course what sets it back. The guangxi system meaning there’s casual disdain for creating economic externalities (or human ones). Globally significant business empires mostly run by old men with no secondary yet alone tertiary education, and their little Prince (and occasional Princess) children with paper credentials and a family name.

    The “glitz” riding roughshod over the history. Naked personal ambition driven by accumulation of wealth in a way that would make American capitalists blush. A national ambition for not just economic and military supremacy but cultural and technological too, which is totally under appreciated in Western politics outside the US Republican Party and a few British Tories.

    As an international visitor, you can have a mostly bland but comfortable experience in overpriced identikit global hotels and awe at the airport terminal and maglev etc... Or you can go off the beaten track and have a largely (but not totally) unpleasant experience in cities that mostly all look the same through the haze of pollution and the searing cultural homogeneity imposed by the communist party.

    I’ve been loads of times all over. Each time I said I wouldn’t mind not going again. Still feel the same way. Would never use my own money to go but will do go if I have to.

    What did business and travel writers say about the Reich in the early to mid 30s?

    It’s a policy pickle. I concluded a while ago that Nixonism has failed. But so would outright belligerence. All I see left is standing up for our own interests, economies and notions of civilisation and trust that in the end, maybe after we’re all gone here, our vision wins out. A Long Cold War if you will. Step 1 is accepting you’re already in that Cold War, to which I pay thanks to Donald J.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
    There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
    Yes indeed.

    It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.

    I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
    13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.

    Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
    Of course you can support the monarchy without being bothered if other countries keep our monarchy as their monarchy.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
    other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.

    Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
    Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
    He killed sentient animals for fun.

    You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
    That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
    Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.

    Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
    Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
    other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.

    Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
    Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
    He killed sentient animals for fun.

    You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
    That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
    Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.

    Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
    Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
    Progressives moan about it, and reassure themselves by only buying meat that was a happy animal when it was murdered
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    "I can see your Voice" with Paddy McGuinness has just come on.
    Could a kind soul point me to a Prince Philip tribute show?

    Another crap Paddy McGuinness show, sums up terrestrial tv these days.
    Actually. I am watching it.
    Slack jawed in admiration at the cojones of whoever pitched the idea.
    It really is too bizarre for words. No description could possibly do it justice.
    One of the most evil things to have been voided from the bowels of lockdown is surely the unprecedented outpouring of odd gameshows, particularly given that the recycling of a rota of "celebrities" on virtually all of them now seems to be de rigeur* Tonnes of cheap, socially distanced, bilge...

    (* Confession: I thought Michael McIntyre's The Wheel was actually quite fun, but I guess even the stopped clock of novelty light entertainment will occasionally be right by chance.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    CNN: BBC deluged with complaints over wall-to-wall Prince Philip coverage

    Royalists will now be appalled no Prince Philip special coverage on any mainstream channel.

    The Hit List on BBC1, Rugby League on BBC2, Catchphrase Celebrity Special on ITV, the news followed by Grand Designs on C4 and Susan Calman's Grand Day Out on C5
    Hi HYUFD

    A simple I was wrong on television coverage is now required from you and you know what, admitting you are wrong on occasions is very good for the soul
    I never said the funeral would definitely not be covered by TV, I said it might not even be televised, so no apology necessary.

    However I still think it would have made more sense to have a televised State Memorial Service later in the year post Covid restrictions but that is up to them.

    The service next week will be just 30 attendees, almost all royal family plus the PM and Archbishop of Canterbury who will do the service, an organist and no more than 8 in the choir
    Why would the PM be there? And if he is, why not the Leader of the Opposition as well?
    The Daily Mail has the invited funeral attendees as likely to be The Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, Princess Anne and her husband, the Duke of York and Beatrice and Eugenie and their husbands, the Earl and Countess of Wessex and their 2 children, Zara and Mike Tindall, the Duke of Sussex, Princess Alexandra, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, the Earl of Snowdon and Lady Sarah Chatto and the Duke's Private Secretary (it had also earlier speculated the PM could take the last place or the Admiral of the Fleet, the PM has now declined to create a space for a member of the royal family).

    That is the 30, nobody else will be invited or admitted

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9457035/Prince-Philips-funeral-Saturday-Meghan-advised-doctors-not-travel.html

    Correct decision by Johnson, whatever his reasoning. I don’t think it would be appropriate for the PM to attend a national event if the LOTO couldn’t.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
    other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.

    Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
    Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
    He killed sentient animals for fun.

    You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
    That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
    Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.

    Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
    Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
    Progressives moan about it, and reassure themselves by only buying meat that was a happy animal when it was murdered
    What a weird thing to post.

    There’s a clear moral difference between hunting to eat and hunting for fun.

    Although I admit the difference isn’t as huge as some like to pretend.

    But hey, may as well get a “LOL at the wokeists” comment in whilst you can.
  • Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
    other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.

    Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
    Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
    He killed sentient animals for fun.

    You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
    That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
    Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.

    Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
    Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
    Presumably it is only the self righteous who are horrified by this article and the progressives will justify these kinds of actions ?

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/gorton-cat-killer-dead-animals-20360402

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
    other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.

    Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
    Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
    He killed sentient animals for fun.

    You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
    That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
    Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.

    Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
    Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
    Progressives moan about it, and reassure themselves by only buying meat that was a happy animal when it was murdered
    What a weird thing to post.

    There’s a clear moral difference between hunting to eat and hunting for fun.

    Although I admit the difference isn’t as huge as some like to pretend.

    But hey, may as well get a “LOL at the wokeists” comment in whilst you can.
    Oh well cant please em all
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
    other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.

    Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
    Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
    He killed sentient animals for fun.

    You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
    That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
    Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.

    Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
    Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
    Presumably it is only the self righteous who are horrified by this article and the progressives will justify these kinds of actions ?

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/gorton-cat-killer-dead-animals-20360402

    I'm not keen on hunting, shooting and fishing and have never done them. But doing that to someone's pet is something quite different, I would say.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,477

    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.

    Not just for us, but for the World.

    You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.

    Not the WORLD. C'mon.
    She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
    Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
    When the aliens land, they still should only devote BBC1 to covering it. There will still be people expecting to see Masterchef on BBC2.
    You've done a funny!

    I'm impressed.
    If aliens did land, personally I wouldn't be gawping at the TV all day about it. It's not really my thing. I can appreciate it would be very momentous, but I'd become apprised of the salient facts via PB and people I know in due course. It's very 1960's to be glued to the screen waiting for someone to tell you what to think.

    That's why I don't really mind the wall to wall Prince Phillip, because I don't really watch it. I am a Royalist and I am interested in his life, but no more interested than I was before he died.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,413

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
    other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.

    Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
    Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
    He killed sentient animals for fun.

    You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
    That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
    Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.

    Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
    Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
    Presumably it is only the self righteous who are horrified by this article and the progressives will justify these kinds of actions ?

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/gorton-cat-killer-dead-animals-20360402

    I expect a better quality of trolling than that,
  • tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
    I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
    Didn't he hunt animals ?
    yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
    Hunted animals for fun.

    Something rarely described as progressive.
    Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
    Indeed

    So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
    Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
    Yep

    My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.

    She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.

    She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
    The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
    No

    Too young

    Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.

    She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
    so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
    other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.

    Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
    Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
    He killed sentient animals for fun.

    You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
    That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
    Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.

    Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
    Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
    Presumably it is only the self righteous who are horrified by this article and the progressives will justify these kinds of actions ?

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/gorton-cat-killer-dead-animals-20360402

    I'm not keen on hunting, shooting and fishing and have never done them. But doing that to someone's pet is something quite different, I would say.
    It' treating animals as if they don't matter, they don't feel pain and suffering, they don't have emotions.

    Its the same mentality.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,410

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    "I can see your Voice" with Paddy McGuinness has just come on.
    Could a kind soul point me to a Prince Philip tribute show?

    Another crap Paddy McGuinness show, sums up terrestrial tv these days.
    Actually. I am watching it.
    Slack jawed in admiration at the cojones of whoever pitched the idea.
    It really is too bizarre for words. No description could possibly do it justice.
    One of the most evil things to have been voided from the bowels of lockdown is surely the unprecedented outpouring of odd gameshows, particularly given that the recycling of a rota of "celebrities" on virtually all of them now seems to be de rigeur* Tonnes of cheap, socially distanced, bilge...

    (* Confession: I thought Michael McIntyre's The Wheel was actually quite fun, but I guess even the stopped clock of novelty light entertainment will occasionally be right by chance.)
    Indeed. We have Amanda Holden and Jimmy Carr (Who seem to have spent lockdown bubbling with a bored plastic surgeon) and 2 others I don't recognise, trying to guess who can sing just by looking at them.
    I think that's what's happening...
This discussion has been closed.