Of course, he's a Professor of Sociology at University of Manchester. This is why the centre-right is putting up such a ferocious resistance to these nihilistic morons.
They started the culture war; we will finish it.
I can certainly take his point to a degree, but I dont really understand one if his propositions, that Britain is particularly statue obsessed, as part of seeking to petrify history (nice pun).
National historical myths and statues of past figured dont seem particularly unique to Britain.
In seeking to building a better tomorrow, agonising over statues of historical figures is an utter irrelevancy - people suspect that anyone who really does so has another hidden agenda, which of course they do. All it does is polarise and divide people, and poisons the well.
We should focus on building on our history not driving a wrecking ball through it.
I visited "NT" Chatsworth House last week and as an experiment I decided to be you for a couple of hours as I went round. By which I mean I was on the lookout for our history being trashed. I didn't find much to get angry about (and I was you, remember).
If pushed, I can report that there was one example of what riles you (and me when I'm you) under a statue of a colonialist worthy, where it was clear the text had been altered to mention that in addition to his good works this guy had done his share of bad stuff.
"Thomas Tyrant III lived here from 1752 to 1775 and was responsible for the magnificent library extension. During his life of service to the Crown he endowed a great many things with a great many things. He was also no slouch when it came to exploiting and pillaging overseas. He could be a bit of a bastard like that, could Thomas Tyrant III"
Kind of like that. It read a bit oddly to me. Perhaps better to take him down.
There's something very Brexity and populist about that headline. It's as if Johnson wrote it. Perhaps he did, knowing how things are these days.
Point is, tomato ketchup is so relatable for the masses. Absolutely no whiff of liberal elite about it. Ketchup in, Kefir out.
I see this piece of news going down a storm in the Red Wall. "It's coming home, it's coming home, it's coming ..." they'll be singing.
I'm being totally serious. It's a small thing, this, but the things are mounting up. Johnson is reaching places that in a saner, better world he shouldn't and wouldn't.
So creating jobs and bringing investment in is bad because Boris might get a few extra votes? That's one way to look at it, I guess.
I didn't read the comment that way. I read it as lamenting that some good news unfortunately has the side effect of helping Boris cement his political hold on things, particularly in relation to the red wall and long term that is bad, not that investment is bad because of that.
Boris delivers jobs - the Tories get re-elected round here.
Boris fails to deliver jobs - someone else will win the seats.
You only have to look at Redcar post 2005 to see how things play out - deliver and you get the votes, fail to deliver and the voters will move on to the next party.
Of course, he's a Professor of Sociology at University of Manchester. This is why the centre-right is putting up such a ferocious resistance to these nihilistic morons.
They started the culture war; we will finish it.
Well I guess he has already achieved one of his objectives in that war: getting publicity from all-too-easily-angry right wingers who like to get cross about Professors of Sociology. I suspect even he doesn't believe all statues should be taken down, but it has got him some good controversial publicity.
I have always thought that history does genuinely repeat itself because the nature of human psychology. There is some symmetry between the bossy natured wokeists and the puritans who believed all statues and symbols were idolatrous and papist. Some people just love to force their view of the world onto others.
Oriel College basically said they couldn't take down their statue of Rhodes on their property even though they wanted to because the government would block it. So who is forcing their opinion on whom here?
Which is Oriel talking diversionary bollocks. Unless the statue is considered to be listed as part of the facade of the college - which it probably is, thinking about it. So they would need to a apply to modify the facade (remove the statue).
Historic England aren't what most people would think of as the government, though.
All of this is diversionary bollocks. It's the obsession of far-Left narcissists and nihilists wanting to make a name for themselves, and Marxists who want to pull down the symbols and culture of Britain in the belief that what's already there is an obstacle to
I've spoken to many black colleagues over the last year. What they want is more role models that look like them at the top, far more mentoring and coaching, more inclusion in people's social and professional networks, more positive stories about them in the media, an end to being judged negatively by the authorities, and to being treated differently by regular people because of how they look.
Not a single one mentioned statues as an issue, and the only one who did said so in the context of being worrying they'd be blamed for being the cause of an assault on British history which would make things worse.
Yes I think taking down statues is a distraction from the real problems black people face. Here in Leeds they did a review of the statues last year in response to the protests. The councillor who led the review concluded that no statues should be taken down, but more should be put up of prominent non white people around Leeds to help improve diversity. At worst, the most controversial statues would have an additional plaque added. No fuss, no arguments and the idea has gone down well.
While Boris tied the knot at the weekend, Cameron’s old Notting Hill Set cast more lonely figures in Porto, as they arrived to watch the Champions League Final. George Osborne turned up on his tod, notably without his fiancé Thea Rogers. Neither has Rogers been seen in their new Somerset home for some time…
Guido also spots Gove made the trip, again on his own, making full use of the government’s green travel list.
Unfortunately for Michael, one local eye-witness reports he was shortly “hounded out” of the bar pictured above.
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Perhaps he’d made a bucket of ducats from providing ppe against ye plague
1671 a bit early for black slave trade, that was era of white slave trade? We weren’t allowed to trade in Africa till after 1700?
The black slaves could labour twice as long as white slaves before dropping dead. No brainier in terms of profit margin really.
Of course, he's a Professor of Sociology at University of Manchester. This is why the centre-right is putting up such a ferocious resistance to these nihilistic morons.
They started the culture war; we will finish it.
I can certainly take his point to a degree, but I dont really understand one if his propositions, that Britain is particularly statue obsessed, as part of seeking to petrify history (nice pun).
National historical myths and statues of past figured dont seem particularly unique to Britain.
In seeking to building a better tomorrow, agonising over statues of historical figures is an utter irrelevancy - people suspect that anyone who really does so has another hidden agenda, which of course they do. All it does is polarise and divide people, and poisons the well.
We should focus on building on our history not driving a wrecking ball through it.
I visited "NT" Chatsworth House last week and as an experiment I decided to be you for a couple of hours as I went round. By which I mean I was on the lookout for our history being trashed. I didn't find much to get angry about (and I was you, remember).
If pushed, I can report that there was one example of what riles you (and me when I'm you) under a statue of a colonialist worthy, where it was clear the text had been altered to mention that in addition to his good works this guy had done his share of bad stuff.
"Thomas Tyrant III lived here from 1752 to 1775 and was responsible for the magnificent library extension. During his life of service to the Crown he endowed a great many things with a great many things. He was also no slouch when it came to exploiting and pillaging overseas. He could be a bit of a bastard like that, could Thomas Tyrant III"
Kind of like that. It read a bit oddly to me. Perhaps better to take him down.
I’m not convinced that you were trying hard enough?
As an aside, I had never even heard of Naomi Osaka before today. She's a tennis player. She said she was depressed and therefore decided not to do a press conference.
I am struggling to see a story here.
But Piers Morgan decided there was one. Apparently, she's a "brat" and a "madam", because she chose to skip questions from the press.
Now Piers is entitled to his opinions. But didn't Piers Morgan walk off a Good Morning Britain show when faced with questions he didn't like?
Naomi Osaka defeated Sabrina Williams last year IIRC. Her leaving the French Open is a HUGE blow for the event and the sport.
She's had some mental health issues, specifically difficulty dealing with being cross-examined about her ups & esp downs on the tennis court. There appears to have been a basic communications breakdown between her and French Open officials.
For which both share blame, but more goes on them methinks, because it sure seems she has a legitimate personal issue AND she's one of the more interesting & potentially great players on the court today? Or NOT on the court in this case.
I know we have the cult of the individual today and the mere mention of mental health means we must feel sorry for whoever claims it as an issue (despite how badly behaved they are) but the French open exists to play a tennis tournament. The prize money the players get (females now get as much as males and it is a lot) comes mainly from TV rights . So it stands to reason players have to engage with it. The French open needs to be about the tennis not her. Just wish the French Open would say that without having to take her issues into account.
I know nothing of this, but my understanding is that these tournaments should be about evaluating via series of competitive match ups who is the best tennis player.
If someone wishes only to play tennis, and not to appear at press conferences, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
Of course, if that is unacceptable to the competition organizer, then they are free to make appearance a condition of play, and players are free to find that either tolerable or intolerable.
My issue - such that it was - was more about Piers Morgan being a dickwad.
The problem is that the competition is professional, and the prize money is being paid for by the media.
Appearance at the press conferences is very much a condition of playing in the tournament, which Miss Osaka has now decided is unacceptable to her and withdrawn.
When you say "very much", is it a contractual requirement of playing, or something that is just assumed?
It is contractual. Players sign up to the rules. Article III.H of the Grand Slam rules requires players to attend a post-match media conference within 30 minutes of the end of the match unless they are injured and physically unable to appear or the tournament referee agrees otherwise. Non-appearance makes the player liable to a fine of up to $20k.
30 mins feels unnecessary, especially as some of the mens matches last five hours plus. Why not make it same day? That is probably easier on the players who have lost a long tough match without losing access for the journalists. They might even get better answers if they let the players get a bit refreshed.
You seem to be under the impression that the media want “better answers”. The conditions under which they are forced to perform are deliberate. The media want them to explode under pressure or emotion of the immediate aftermath. Or refuse to answer questions so that, yes, they can sell column inches describing their mental state. The one thing they absolutely DON’T want out of the press conferences is considered sensible answers to considered sensible questions.
And the level of emotion to be exploited in the aftermath of high intensity tennis matches is probably at least the equal of, if not greater than, any other high profile sport.
And in doing that, the media are probably delivering what a large chunk of the watching public want. I'm sure that includes me. Can anyone remember any football manager comment from 25 years ago other than Kevin Keegan's "Love it" rant?
Western Civilization really would be a good idea.
I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily delivering what the public want. They are delivering what will make the public pay any attention to press conferences. Which isn’t quite the same thing. Without the press conferences many of them would be out of a job. Or might actually have to pay greater attention to and write about the tennis matches themselves.
Many individual sports attract obsessive people with less than perfect social skills. Do we insist on excluding them because they prefer to play rather than talk?
I recall there was a professional golfer who admitted that he hated giving winner's speeches so much that he often aimed for second place. I played a bit of golf when young and will admit to the same.
When you are competing in front of a crowd that it isn't a social situation and is absolutely fine, because you are just concentrating on beating your opponent or playing your best shot and you are in your element.
I can totally sympathise with Miss Osaka. After all, she is very young, too.
What does it really add to the event having the media talk to someone who doesn't want to talk? If they are good enough to be paid well they'll have gone through media coaching and will just come out with the usual cr*p anyway.
Andy Murray was a great tennis player but fewer interviews would have been beneficial to his image. Like sausages, sometimes it is better not to see how things are made.
If she wants to talk in a quieter environment at a later time then fine.
Rubbish, she has a contract to fulfill, less whining and a bit more work would do her a power of good.
I agree there is a contract in this case and that in this situation she had to withdraw.
That wasn't really my point. Do the terms of the contract really benefit the sport?
I want to watch people who are great at tennis, not people being tortured in an interview.
Tiger Woods was pretty terrible at interviews but watch him on the course (I saw him win the Open at Hoylake with an absolute masterclass of control) and he was totally different. Nick Faldo was the same.
What do we want out of sport? Just a soap opera?
They have little issue with their own sites and milking the celebrity, for me she was just miffed she was not getting paid extra for it , I have little time for prima donna's, and not even a great one at that. It goes with the job and the millions , if she does not like it go and get a job elsewhere. No sympathy here whatsoever.
The third UK wave is starting. Is Boris going to lock down late again?
I don’t want to come over all Keir Starmer, but there is a pattern of criminality developing here, isn’t there
Are you a member of independent sage by chance
Boris has his full “let the bodies pile high, I’m not locking down again” head on, how is gummidge supposed to make the right balanced call with that head on?
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Tobias Rustat.
However, Rustat’s involvement in the Royal African Company, which transported almost 150,000 slaves to the Americas, led the college to address his legacy by removing a portrait and renaming the “Rustat feast” previously held in his honour.
IIRC The RAC (not the rival to the AA) transported more slaves to America during the transAtlantic slave trade than any other company.
The head of Jesus College is a descendent of slaves. It would seem odd to make her sit through a feast named in honour of someone who profited from the murder and exploitation of her ancestors. Although I suspect her ancestry helps to explain some of the frothing on the topic in the right wing press. Nothing gets these people upset more than a woman of colour in a position of authority.
To be clear, you have no evidence but are keen to call people racists because you have a "suspiscion".
It's a pattern. Meghan Markle. Naomi Osaka. Which MP gets more hate mail than all others? (Diane Abbot). I doubt Jesus College is the only Oxbridge College doing this. But this is the one in the news. You have to ask yourself why. So yes, I do have a "suspiscion" or perhaps "suspicion" as I like to call it.
Fake News about Diane Abbot.
So who gets the most hate mail - as it wouldn't surprise me she gets the most...
The problem with Diane Abbot is that she has a long and glamorous history of saying utterly stupid things in public. This has (not entirely unsurprisingly) make her a sort of joke figure. It's nothing to do with skin colour or gender - to a lesser extent (because they are marginally less stupid in public) people like Richard Burgon or David Lammy get the same treatment - I still can't hear David Lammy speak without thinking of the mocking "Lammy Vision" video that someone produced after he called Boris "Literally Hitler"...
EU set to delay decision on adding the UK to its ‘white list’ of countries deemed safe for non-essential travel. The Indian variant and ‘upward trend’ of cases will see decision on UK postponed, diplomats say. ‘Don’t expect the UK on the list before June 14,’ one tells me.
Of course the Delta variant is probably already in the EU - just with few exceptions (Denmark) they aren't doing enough testing or sequencing to find it....
The third UK wave is starting. Is Boris going to lock down late again?
I don’t want to come over all Keir Starmer, but there is a pattern of criminality developing here, isn’t there
Where the 3rd wave is different from 1 and 2 is a small thing called vaccination. As of yesterday over 73% of adults have had one shot, and nearly 50% both. Plus existing immunity from infection and we have by now almost, if not entirely, decoupled cases from hospitalization. In fact despite the increase in cases, the numbers in hospital continue a gentle decline, and are under 900 for the entire 66 million people in the country.
I expect 99% of people who watch the French Open do so to see the best players in the world compete, rather than seeing inane questions from journalists at press conferences straight after.
It shows a complete lack of imagination on behalf of Roland Garros to not find a way to let her play while forfeiting a proportion of her prize money for not fulfilling a part of her contract. That would discourage other players from doing the same, while ensuring those with mental health issues can still compete happily, and avoids the situation where one of the best female players has had to pull out of the competition and so making it a worse spectacle for fans.
I suspect most if not all the players would be delighted to forgo the press conferences, and the organisers know that if they have an opt out then many would take it. Which, if my speculation is correct, leads to the question “who are the press conferences actually for?”
I would suggest mainly the sponsors and to promote the sport to further enhance and sell their products given the squillions they put into it. Someone has to pay for the millions these people get for hitting a bit of rubber over a net.
While Boris tied the knot at the weekend, Cameron’s old Notting Hill Set cast more lonely figures in Porto, as they arrived to watch the Champions League Final. George Osborne turned up on his tod, notably without his fiancé Thea Rogers. Neither has Rogers been seen in their new Somerset home for some time…
Guido also spots Gove made the trip, again on his own, making full use of the government’s green travel list.
Unfortunately for Michael, one local eye-witness reports he was shortly “hounded out” of the bar pictured above.
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Tobias Rustat.
However, Rustat’s involvement in the Royal African Company, which transported almost 150,000 slaves to the Americas, led the college to address his legacy by removing a portrait and renaming the “Rustat feast” previously held in his honour.
IIRC The RAC (not the rival to the AA) transported more slaves to America during the transAtlantic slave trade than any other company.
The head of Jesus College is a descendent of slaves. It would seem odd to make her sit through a feast named in honour of someone who profited from the murder and exploitation of her ancestors. Although I suspect her ancestry helps to explain some of the frothing on the topic in the right wing press. Nothing gets these people upset more than a woman of colour in a position of authority.
To be clear, you have no evidence but are keen to call people racists because you have a "suspiscion".
It's a pattern. Meghan Markle. Naomi Osaka. Which MP gets more hate mail than all others? (Diane Abbot). I doubt Jesus College is the only Oxbridge College doing this. But this is the one in the news. You have to ask yourself why. So yes, I do have a "suspiscion" or perhaps "suspicion" as I like to call it.
As an aside, I had never even heard of Naomi Osaka before today. She's a tennis player. She said she was depressed and therefore decided not to do a press conference.
I am struggling to see a story here.
But Piers Morgan decided there was one. Apparently, she's a "brat" and a "madam", because she chose to skip questions from the press.
Now Piers is entitled to his opinions. But didn't Piers Morgan walk off a Good Morning Britain show when faced with questions he didn't like?
Naomi Osaka defeated Sabrina Williams last year IIRC. Her leaving the French Open is a HUGE blow for the event and the sport.
She's had some mental health issues, specifically difficulty dealing with being cross-examined about her ups & esp downs on the tennis court. There appears to have been a basic communications breakdown between her and French Open officials.
For which both share blame, but more goes on them methinks, because it sure seems she has a legitimate personal issue AND she's one of the more interesting & potentially great players on the court today? Or NOT on the court in this case.
I know we have the cult of the individual today and the mere mention of mental health means we must feel sorry for whoever claims it as an issue (despite how badly behaved they are) but the French open exists to play a tennis tournament. The prize money the players get (females now get as much as males and it is a lot) comes mainly from TV rights . So it stands to reason players have to engage with it. The French open needs to be about the tennis not her. Just wish the French Open would say that without having to take her issues into account.
I know nothing of this, but my understanding is that these tournaments should be about evaluating via series of competitive match ups who is the best tennis player.
If someone wishes only to play tennis, and not to appear at press conferences, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
Of course, if that is unacceptable to the competition organizer, then they are free to make appearance a condition of play, and players are free to find that either tolerable or intolerable.
My issue - such that it was - was more about Piers Morgan being a dickwad.
The problem is that the competition is professional, and the prize money is being paid for by the media.
Appearance at the press conferences is very much a condition of playing in the tournament, which Miss Osaka has now decided is unacceptable to her and withdrawn.
When you say "very much", is it a contractual requirement of playing, or something that is just assumed?
It is contractual. Players sign up to the rules. Article III.H of the Grand Slam rules requires players to attend a post-match media conference within 30 minutes of the end of the match unless they are injured and physically unable to appear or the tournament referee agrees otherwise. Non-appearance makes the player liable to a fine of up to $20k.
30 mins feels unnecessary, especially as some of the mens matches last five hours plus. Why not make it same day? That is probably easier on the players who have lost a long tough match without losing access for the journalists. They might even get better answers if they let the players get a bit refreshed.
You seem to be under the impression that the media want “better answers”. The conditions under which they are forced to perform are deliberate. The media want them to explode under pressure or emotion of the immediate aftermath. Or refuse to answer questions so that, yes, they can sell column inches describing their mental state. The one thing they absolutely DON’T want out of the press conferences is considered sensible answers to considered sensible questions.
And the level of emotion to be exploited in the aftermath of high intensity tennis matches is probably at least the equal of, if not greater than, any other high profile sport.
And in doing that, the media are probably delivering what a large chunk of the watching public want. I'm sure that includes me. Can anyone remember any football manager comment from 25 years ago other than Kevin Keegan's "Love it" rant?
Western Civilization really would be a good idea.
I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily delivering what the public want. They are delivering what will make the public pay any attention to press conferences. Which isn’t quite the same thing. Without the press conferences many of them would be out of a job. Or might actually have to pay greater attention to and write about the tennis matches themselves.
Many individual sports attract obsessive people with less than perfect social skills. Do we insist on excluding them because they prefer to play rather than talk?
I recall there was a professional golfer who admitted that he hated giving winner's speeches so much that he often aimed for second place. I played a bit of golf when young and will admit to the same.
When you are competing in front of a crowd that it isn't a social situation and is absolutely fine, because you are just concentrating on beating your opponent or playing your best shot and you are in your element.
I can totally sympathise with Miss Osaka. After all, she is very young, too.
What does it really add to the event having the media talk to someone who doesn't want to talk? If they are good enough to be paid well they'll have gone through media coaching and will just come out with the usual cr*p anyway.
Andy Murray was a great tennis player but fewer interviews would have been beneficial to his image. Like sausages, sometimes it is better not to see how things are made.
If she wants to talk in a quieter environment at a later time then fine.
Rubbish, she has a contract to fulfill, less whining and a bit more work would do her a power of good.
I agree there is a contract in this case and that in this situation she had to withdraw.
That wasn't really my point. Do the terms of the contract really benefit the sport?
I want to watch people who are great at tennis, not people being tortured in an interview.
Tiger Woods was pretty terrible at interviews but watch him on the course (I saw him win the Open at Hoylake with an absolute masterclass of control) and he was totally different. Nick Faldo was the same.
What do we want out of sport? Just a soap opera?
They have little issue with their own sites and milking the celebrity, for me she was just miffed she was not getting paid extra for it , I have little time for prima donna's, and not even a great one at that. It goes with the job and the millions , if she does not like it go and get a job elsewhere. No sympathy here whatsoever.
Good morning Malc
I have read your comments about Noami Osaka this morning and to be honest, they are wholly unacceptable and very hurtful to all those who are suffering serious, and in some cases grave, mental health issues
You are demonstrating a very disturbing attitude, which is quite common, against those in a mental heath crisis and is not at all helpful and does not reflect well on yourself
Ramsden said the Bank would not be complacent about inflation. “If it is not temporary we know what to do about that. We can push bank rate up from its historically low level [0.1%] and we know what that will do to demand.”
Unsurprisingly, the bank's default position is to do nothing (i.e. 0.1% is the new normal).
It's the big known unknown. How would voters react to the BoE fighting inflation by raising interest rates? Would the government say "not our fault, blame those nasty economists"?
Batley & Spen: the Workers Party of Britain can be laid from 85 upwards. That's George Galloway to his friends. But William Hill have him priced at 100/1.
Just laying him at 85 would be even more profitable?
Ramsden said the Bank would not be complacent about inflation. “If it is not temporary we know what to do about that. We can push bank rate up from its historically low level [0.1%] and we know what that will do to demand.”
Unsurprisingly, the bank's default position is to do nothing (i.e. 0.1% is the new normal).
It's the big known unknown. How would voters react to the BoE fighting inflation by raising interest rates? Would the government say "not our fault, blame those nasty economists"?
While Boris tied the knot at the weekend, Cameron’s old Notting Hill Set cast more lonely figures in Porto, as they arrived to watch the Champions League Final. George Osborne turned up on his tod, notably without his fiancé Thea Rogers. Neither has Rogers been seen in their new Somerset home for some time…
Guido also spots Gove made the trip, again on his own, making full use of the government’s green travel list.
Unfortunately for Michael, one local eye-witness reports he was shortly “hounded out” of the bar pictured above.
Mr. Royale, as an aside, the iconoclasts ended up losing in Byzantium.
They destroyed a lot of priceless art in the intervening period, though.
That's also the problem with the put everything in a museum idea - even if they wanted to most art probably doesnt get displayed, so in practice it's just removing stuff. Much worthy stuff hidden.
Along with a larger amount of non worthy of course.
Yes it is idiotic. Much better to put up a plaque and say "this statue is of a slave trader. x number of slaves died. The statue is left here not to commemorate him, but to commemorate those who's lives were destroyed by slavery" or such like
Just what I would expect from the biggest bellend on the site, pure mince.
Despite Brexit....Because of Brexit....delete as appropriate.
Because of Brexit.
In order to secure supply chains there was an inevitability than domestically consumed supplies would be best made in the UK.
So in the credit column we have vaccines, namely we have them all and the EU have none (granted, a big plus) and Heinz has moved production of HP sauce from the Netherlands to Wigan.
Is there anything you can think of for the debit column? No, OK.
I think you mean anything else in the credit column?...no?
Also the EU doesn't have "none". After a slow start they are getting there. Also if we have them all why is it that we are still languishing in the 90% and 50%?
No. The jolly band of Brexiteers seem keen to promote the positives, but seem reluctant to accede to any negatives. Maybe fresh soft fruit rotting in the fields due to a lack of European labour is a good thing. What do I know?
It’s not a good thing at all. People who have been claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance for more than a month or two should be made to take a job picking that fruit or lose their benefits
Good luck with that.
What we don’t want anymore is a part of the population who think they are too good for hard work and that it’s for Eastern Europeans to do instead.
Brexit gives the government the chance to say ‘We have protected these jobs from outside competition, you have a chance to earn a living and better yourself, now get on with it”. If they don’t, then no dole, and offer them out to EU workers.
Funny. I thought you were in favour of the free market.
It’s ok for people who are doing well. I think the poorest workers need protection from the free market of Labour
Mr. Eagles, you'll be devastated when you hear of what Caesar did to the Thuringii.
Personally I'm not keen on Churchill College, Cambridge. They should abolish that.
Forget the fact that Churchill was a war criminal and racist they should abolish it for being a JCL college.
And Jesus College. That should definitely go.
Is Jesus getting cancelled? I would have thought he was woker than woke (for his time). - Leftwing firebrand (money lender incident) - Standing up for the rights of depised minorities (tax collectors) - Forgiving of members of the oldest profession (the sinful woman) And, above all, he was successful and popular (for a time, at least) despite being in a minority ethnic group (white, as we know from the pictures)
I fail to see the basis for cancelling Jesus.
Jesus was OK with slavery and used slavery often in his parables. Unsurprisingly since slavery was entirely normal in his day.
Which shows the problem of reading morality of the present into the past, and vice versa.
Doubtful if there is evidence either way that Jesus was OK with slavery. Some evidence that Paul was OK with moderated slavery, defo would not have been OK with sexual abuse/coercion as part of slavery as the same rules in early Christianity applied to everyone - one of its popular features with middling and lower sorts.
Then slavery is a multi faceted concept. What about the master slave relationship between Cicero and Tiro for example. I suspect he had a much better life than some non slave third world factory workers.
I am, being an atheist, very far from being an expert, but cautiously propose the following thought: Jesus was not a revolutionary: he was very much in the mold of dealing with the world as it is, not as he or anyone else would like it to be. His morality was based on what an inidividual should do, rather than how the collective should coerce the individual to be. ("render unto caesar what is due to caesar undo to God what is due to God", or however it went.) Therefore - not woke. My knowledge of the Bible is very scant indeed, though, and I may be wrong.
Given how long afterwards it was written, and the obvious NPOV issues of its authors, I expect the reality was a long way from the story, in any case. Best cancel him, just to be on the safe side?
Ramsden said the Bank would not be complacent about inflation. “If it is not temporary we know what to do about that. We can push bank rate up from its historically low level [0.1%] and we know what that will do to demand.”
Unsurprisingly, the bank's default position is to do nothing (i.e. 0.1% is the new normal).
It's the big known unknown. How would voters react to the BoE fighting inflation by raising interest rates? Would the government say "not our fault, blame those nasty economists"?
Couldn’t they reverse a fair part of the Quantitive easing? In simple terms - sell some of the debt they’ve purchased by growing their balance sheet, and then burn the cash they receive for it (shrinking the balance sheet).
Or does that create offshoot problems for Govt’s borrowing?
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Perhaps he’d made a bucket of ducats from providing ppe against ye plague
These Tory ar**holes feasting on ppe are far worse than any slave trader ever was.
Of course, he's a Professor of Sociology at University of Manchester. This is why the centre-right is putting up such a ferocious resistance to these nihilistic morons.
They started the culture war; we will finish it.
I can certainly take his point to a degree, but I dont really understand one if his propositions, that Britain is particularly statue obsessed, as part of seeking to petrify history (nice pun).
National historical myths and statues of past figured dont seem particularly unique to Britain.
In seeking to building a better tomorrow, agonising over statues of historical figures is an utter irrelevancy - people suspect that anyone who really does so has another hidden agenda, which of course they do. All it does is polarise and divide people, and poisons the well.
We should focus on building on our history not driving a wrecking ball through it.
I visited "NT" Chatsworth House last week and as an experiment I decided to be you for a couple of hours as I went round. By which I mean I was on the lookout for our history being trashed. I didn't find much to get angry about (and I was you, remember).
If pushed, I can report that there was one example of what riles you (and me when I'm you) under a statue of a colonialist worthy, where it was clear the text had been altered to mention that in addition to his good works this guy had done his share of bad stuff.
"Thomas Tyrant III lived here from 1752 to 1775 and was responsible for the magnificent library extension. During his life of service to the Crown he endowed a great many things with a great many things. He was also no slouch when it came to exploiting and pillaging overseas. He could be a bit of a bastard like that, could Thomas Tyrant III"
Kind of like that. It read a bit oddly to me. Perhaps better to take him down.
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Tobias Rustat.
However, Rustat’s involvement in the Royal African Company, which transported almost 150,000 slaves to the Americas, led the college to address his legacy by removing a portrait and renaming the “Rustat feast” previously held in his honour.
IIRC The RAC (not the rival to the AA) transported more slaves to America during the transAtlantic slave trade than any other company.
The head of Jesus College is a descendent of slaves. It would seem odd to make her sit through a feast named in honour of someone who profited from the murder and exploitation of her ancestors. Although I suspect her ancestry helps to explain some of the frothing on the topic in the right wing press. Nothing gets these people upset more than a woman of colour in a position of authority.
To be clear, you have no evidence but are keen to call people racists because you have a "suspiscion".
It's a pattern. Meghan Markle. Naomi Osaka. Which MP gets more hate mail than all others? (Diane Abbot). I doubt Jesus College is the only Oxbridge College doing this. But this is the one in the news. You have to ask yourself why. So yes, I do have a "suspiscion" or perhaps "suspicion" as I like to call it.
Fake News about Diane Abbot.
So who gets the most hate mail - as it wouldn't surprise me she gets the most...
It seems very unlikely that the relatively small number of Tory MPs from minority groups are driving i).
Cummings probably got more hate-mail than any of the MPs.
The story behind the narrative on abuse was that Amnesty International did a small study of women MPs only, which was used as the basis for the Diane Abbott narrative.
And an academic team at Sheffield University under I think Professor Kalina Bontcheva, which is a larger sequence of studies running since about 2015, which had different results. One of the things they demonstrate is that abuse relates to which MPs are prominent, and to current issues, and how those change - eg at present Boris and SKS, Hancock and his Shadow are relatively prominent.
The Abbott narrative was created after the Cost of Police interview.
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Perhaps he’d made a bucket of ducats from providing ppe against ye plague
These Tory ar**holes feasting on ppe are far worse than any slave trader ever was.
On a point of order Malc, you 'matriculate with' PPE, you don't 'feast on it.'
Ramsden said the Bank would not be complacent about inflation. “If it is not temporary we know what to do about that. We can push bank rate up from its historically low level [0.1%] and we know what that will do to demand.”
Unsurprisingly, the bank's default position is to do nothing (i.e. 0.1% is the new normal).
It's the big known unknown. How would voters react to the BoE fighting inflation by raising interest rates? Would the government say "not our fault, blame those nasty economists"?
Probably!
No probably about it. That was the entire point of making the BoE independent back in 97 - to remove the politics from it so that when bad things occur the blame doesn't land at Brown's / Sunak's door.
We are in a different era today. Some people want the morality of the past to confine us today, others want to judge those in the past with the morality of the present. Both are preposterous.
Roman attitudes towards slavery were interesting, shifted considerably over the course of several centuries, and varied enormously between individuals.
Romans, unlike Greeks or Southern plantation owners, never pretended to believe that some people were natural slaves, nor that it was a positive good (much of the Roman citizenry was made up of ex-slaves). Any Roman would have accepted that being a slave was a bad condition, but they viewed it as necessary, perhaps a necessary evil.
That said, during the worst period of Roman slavery, the last century of the Republic, many masters had no qualms at all at working their slaves to death, and replacing them with fresh stock, provided by Roman conquests. As the conquests dried up, in the Imperial period, attitudes towards slaves generally improved, and increasingly, they were seen as people in a state of unfreedom, as opposed to chattels.
At any point, though, there were people like Cicero who genuinely respected Tiro, on the one hand, and then monsters like Old Cato or Vedius Pollio, at the other end of the spectrum.
The very worst example of slavery in operation would probably be somewhere like Haiti in 1790, which reads like a vast concentration camp.
Mr. Eagles, you'll be devastated when you hear of what Caesar did to the Thuringii.
Personally I'm not keen on Churchill College, Cambridge. They should abolish that.
Forget the fact that Churchill was a war criminal and racist they should abolish it for being a JCL college.
And Jesus College. That should definitely go.
Fun fact about Jesus College, Jesus doesn't appear anywhere in the official name. Call it Virgin College and everybody will be happy as 'virgin' does appear in the official name, twice.
New College is officially called BVM - College of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Worshipped By The Waters of the River Thames.
But that a mouthful so everyone* just called it the “New” College
While Boris tied the knot at the weekend, Cameron’s old Notting Hill Set cast more lonely figures in Porto, as they arrived to watch the Champions League Final. George Osborne turned up on his tod, notably without his fiancé Thea Rogers. Neither has Rogers been seen in their new Somerset home for some time…
Guido also spots Gove made the trip, again on his own, making full use of the government’s green travel list.
Unfortunately for Michael, one local eye-witness reports he was shortly “hounded out” of the bar pictured above.
Ramsden said the Bank would not be complacent about inflation. “If it is not temporary we know what to do about that. We can push bank rate up from its historically low level [0.1%] and we know what that will do to demand.”
Unsurprisingly, the bank's default position is to do nothing (i.e. 0.1% is the new normal).
It's the big known unknown. How would voters react to the BoE fighting inflation by raising interest rates? Would the government say "not our fault, blame those nasty economists"?
Probably!
No probably about it. That was the entire point of making the BoE independent back in 97 - to remove the politics from it so that when bad things occur the blame doesn't land at Brown's / Sunak's door.
Not sure it'll work out well for the Tories!
The feeding frenzy that has been the housing market for the last year could look rather foolish if the BoE has no option but to hike rates.
If Starmer does get the heave ho, I think I have found the perfect follow up job...head of the roundabout appreciation society of Great Britain..and keeping in his desire to be seen a flag shagger while also woke...the society made their UK roundabout of the year one dedicated to fallen soliders of WWI and the international one, one in Australia dedicated to LGBTQ community.
We are in a different era today. Some people want the morality of the past to confine us today, others want to judge those in the past with the morality of the present. Both are preposterous.
Roman attitudes towards slavery were interesting, shifted considerably over the course of several centuries, and varied enormously between individuals.
Romans, unlike Greeks or Southern plantation owners, never pretended to believe that some people were natural slaves, nor that it was a positive good (much of the Roman citizenry was made up of ex-slaves). Any Roman would have accepted that being a slave was a bad condition, but they viewed it as necessary, perhaps a necessary evil.
That said, during the worst period of Roman slavery, the last century of the Republic, many masters had no qualms at all at working their slaves to death, and replacing them with fresh stock, provided by Roman conquests. As the conquests dried up, in the Imperial period, attitudes towards slaves generally improved, and increasingly, they were seen as people in a state of unfreedom, as opposed to chattels.
At any point, though, there were people like Cicero who genuinely respected Tiro, on the one hand, and then monsters like Old Cato or Vedius Pollio, at the other end of the spectrum.
The very worst example of slavery in operation would probably be somewhere like Haiti in 1790, which reads like a vast concentration camp.
Probably the Roman mines at Rio Tinto were equally horrific. Mining in classical slavery was how they got rid of "troublesome" or "unwanted" slaves....
As an aside, I had never even heard of Naomi Osaka before today. She's a tennis player. She said she was depressed and therefore decided not to do a press conference.
I am struggling to see a story here.
But Piers Morgan decided there was one. Apparently, she's a "brat" and a "madam", because she chose to skip questions from the press.
Now Piers is entitled to his opinions. But didn't Piers Morgan walk off a Good Morning Britain show when faced with questions he didn't like?
Naomi Osaka defeated Sabrina Williams last year IIRC. Her leaving the French Open is a HUGE blow for the event and the sport.
She's had some mental health issues, specifically difficulty dealing with being cross-examined about her ups & esp downs on the tennis court. There appears to have been a basic communications breakdown between her and French Open officials.
For which both share blame, but more goes on them methinks, because it sure seems she has a legitimate personal issue AND she's one of the more interesting & potentially great players on the court today? Or NOT on the court in this case.
I know we have the cult of the individual today and the mere mention of mental health means we must feel sorry for whoever claims it as an issue (despite how badly behaved they are) but the French open exists to play a tennis tournament. The prize money the players get (females now get as much as males and it is a lot) comes mainly from TV rights . So it stands to reason players have to engage with it. The French open needs to be about the tennis not her. Just wish the French Open would say that without having to take her issues into account.
I know nothing of this, but my understanding is that these tournaments should be about evaluating via series of competitive match ups who is the best tennis player.
If someone wishes only to play tennis, and not to appear at press conferences, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
Of course, if that is unacceptable to the competition organizer, then they are free to make appearance a condition of play, and players are free to find that either tolerable or intolerable.
My issue - such that it was - was more about Piers Morgan being a dickwad.
The problem is that the competition is professional, and the prize money is being paid for by the media.
Appearance at the press conferences is very much a condition of playing in the tournament, which Miss Osaka has now decided is unacceptable to her and withdrawn.
When you say "very much", is it a contractual requirement of playing, or something that is just assumed?
It is contractual. Players sign up to the rules. Article III.H of the Grand Slam rules requires players to attend a post-match media conference within 30 minutes of the end of the match unless they are injured and physically unable to appear or the tournament referee agrees otherwise. Non-appearance makes the player liable to a fine of up to $20k.
30 mins feels unnecessary, especially as some of the mens matches last five hours plus. Why not make it same day? That is probably easier on the players who have lost a long tough match without losing access for the journalists. They might even get better answers if they let the players get a bit refreshed.
You seem to be under the impression that the media want “better answers”. The conditions under which they are forced to perform are deliberate. The media want them to explode under pressure or emotion of the immediate aftermath. Or refuse to answer questions so that, yes, they can sell column inches describing their mental state. The one thing they absolutely DON’T want out of the press conferences is considered sensible answers to considered sensible questions.
And the level of emotion to be exploited in the aftermath of high intensity tennis matches is probably at least the equal of, if not greater than, any other high profile sport.
And in doing that, the media are probably delivering what a large chunk of the watching public want. I'm sure that includes me. Can anyone remember any football manager comment from 25 years ago other than Kevin Keegan's "Love it" rant?
Western Civilization really would be a good idea.
I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily delivering what the public want. They are delivering what will make the public pay any attention to press conferences. Which isn’t quite the same thing. Without the press conferences many of them would be out of a job. Or might actually have to pay greater attention to and write about the tennis matches themselves.
Many individual sports attract obsessive people with less than perfect social skills. Do we insist on excluding them because they prefer to play rather than talk?
I recall there was a professional golfer who admitted that he hated giving winner's speeches so much that he often aimed for second place. I played a bit of golf when young and will admit to the same.
When you are competing in front of a crowd that it isn't a social situation and is absolutely fine, because you are just concentrating on beating your opponent or playing your best shot and you are in your element.
I can totally sympathise with Miss Osaka. After all, she is very young, too.
What does it really add to the event having the media talk to someone who doesn't want to talk? If they are good enough to be paid well they'll have gone through media coaching and will just come out with the usual cr*p anyway.
Andy Murray was a great tennis player but fewer interviews would have been beneficial to his image. Like sausages, sometimes it is better not to see how things are made.
If she wants to talk in a quieter environment at a later time then fine.
Rubbish, she has a contract to fulfill, less whining and a bit more work would do her a power of good.
I agree there is a contract in this case and that in this situation she had to withdraw.
That wasn't really my point. Do the terms of the contract really benefit the sport?
I want to watch people who are great at tennis, not people being tortured in an interview.
Tiger Woods was pretty terrible at interviews but watch him on the course (I saw him win the Open at Hoylake with an absolute masterclass of control) and he was totally different. Nick Faldo was the same.
What do we want out of sport? Just a soap opera?
They have little issue with their own sites and milking the celebrity, for me she was just miffed she was not getting paid extra for it , I have little time for prima donna's, and not even a great one at that. It goes with the job and the millions , if she does not like it go and get a job elsewhere. No sympathy here whatsoever.
Good morning Malc
I have read your comments about Noami Osaka this morning and to be honest, they are wholly unacceptable and very hurtful to all those who are suffering serious, and in some cases grave, mental health issues
You are demonstrating a very disturbing attitude, which is quite common, against those in a mental heath crisis and is not at all helpful and does not reflect well on yourself
G, I don't need a lecture from you on mental health issues, I have several family members with problems. They are not spoilt millionaires happy to stuff their pockets with cash who don't want to have to utter a couple of words after a game. If she can go in front of a huge crowd every day she is fit to say a few words into a microphone. Go preach elsewhere.
PS: You will notice I am in no mood to take crap from anyone.
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Tobias Rustat.
However, Rustat’s involvement in the Royal African Company, which transported almost 150,000 slaves to the Americas, led the college to address his legacy by removing a portrait and renaming the “Rustat feast” previously held in his honour.
IIRC The RAC (not the rival to the AA) transported more slaves to America during the transAtlantic slave trade than any other company.
The head of Jesus College is a descendent of slaves. It would seem odd to make her sit through a feast named in honour of someone who profited from the murder and exploitation of her ancestors. Although I suspect her ancestry helps to explain some of the frothing on the topic in the right wing press. Nothing gets these people upset more than a woman of colour in a position of authority.
To be clear, you have no evidence but are keen to call people racists because you have a "suspiscion".
It's a pattern. Meghan Markle. Naomi Osaka. Which MP gets more hate mail than all others? (Diane Abbot). I doubt Jesus College is the only Oxbridge College doing this. But this is the one in the news. You have to ask yourself why. So yes, I do have a "suspiscion" or perhaps "suspicion" as I like to call it.
Fake News about Diane Abbot.
So who gets the most hate mail - as it wouldn't surprise me she gets the most...
The problem with Diane Abbot is that she has a long and glamorous history of saying utterly stupid things in public. This has (not entirely unsurprisingly) make her a sort of joke figure. It's nothing to do with skin colour or gender - to a lesser extent (because they are marginally less stupid in public) people like Richard Burgon or David Lammy get the same treatment - I still can't hear David Lammy speak without thinking of the mocking "Lammy Vision" video that someone produced after he called Boris "Literally Hitler"...
Abbott getting by far the most (and the most visceral and personal) abuse of any MP in the country has nothing to do with her being black and female? - C'mon.
She hasn't said more stupid stuff in public over the years than plenty of others. Boris Johnson springs to mind. He seems to be celebrated for it.
Ramsden said the Bank would not be complacent about inflation. “If it is not temporary we know what to do about that. We can push bank rate up from its historically low level [0.1%] and we know what that will do to demand.”
Unsurprisingly, the bank's default position is to do nothing (i.e. 0.1% is the new normal).
It's the big known unknown. How would voters react to the BoE fighting inflation by raising interest rates? Would the government say "not our fault, blame those nasty economists"?
Probably!
No probably about it. That was the entire point of making the BoE independent back in 97 - to remove the politics from it so that when bad things occur the blame doesn't land at Brown's / Sunak's door.
Not sure it'll work out well for the Tories!
The feeding frenzy that has been the housing market for the last year could look rather foolish if the BoE has no option but to hike rates.
And what could the Tory party have done about it?
It's not like they can suddenly solve the housing supply issue as I hear a lot of building material prices have increased by 10% today due to demand exceeding supply.
The third UK wave is starting. Is Boris going to lock down late again?
I don’t want to come over all Keir Starmer, but there is a pattern of criminality developing here, isn’t there
Where the 3rd wave is different from 1 and 2 is a small thing called vaccination. As of yesterday over 73% of adults have had one shot, and nearly 50% both. Plus existing immunity from infection and we have by now almost, if not entirely, decoupled cases from hospitalization. In fact despite the increase in cases, the numbers in hospital continue a gentle decline, and are under 900 for the entire 66 million people in the country.
The picture that is worth a thousand words on this -
Despite Brexit....Because of Brexit....delete as appropriate.
Because of Brexit.
In order to secure supply chains there was an inevitability than domestically consumed supplies would be best made in the UK.
So in the credit column we have vaccines, namely we have them all and the EU have none (granted, a big plus) and Heinz has moved production of HP sauce from the Netherlands to Wigan.
Is there anything you can think of for the debit column? No, OK.
I think you mean anything else in the credit column?...no?
Also the EU doesn't have "none". After a slow start they are getting there. Also if we have them all why is it that we are still languishing in the 90% and 50%?
No. The jolly band of Brexiteers seem keen to promote the positives, but seem reluctant to accede to any negatives. Maybe fresh soft fruit rotting in the fields due to a lack of European labour is a good thing. What do I know?
Most of the negatives have been masked by the pandemic. Business will recover from both. The reality is that Brexit was an entirely political effort. There are very few serious economists who think the positives outweigh the negatives. Longer term, who knows? It may be positive, it may be negative, but without a parallel universe and with the masking effect of the pandemic it will largely depend on what people want to believe and which way they voted.
That's a fair view.
My view is that Brexit is largely irrelevant, economically, in the longer-term and I said so in May 2016.
Yes, I think it won't make much difference to the bottom line. Brexit has always been a political and culturally driven process. It was the UK saying "we have no master" to the EU. What will be interesting is how views on the EU change once it becomes clear that brexit is neither here nor there when it comes to the wider economy. There aren't many people who feel culturally European and are attached to the EU for reasons of culture. If you reran the referendum without economic project fear on the remain side the result would have been a landslide as loads of people voted remain because they were convinced by it despite wanting out of the political side of the EU.
The Brexiteers have been lucky in that regard. With the timing of COVID, the recession is clearly in large part linked to that, and probably mostly so in the minds of the general public. Now, with Brexit done, we're going to see 5-7% economic growth, which is basically only a partial recovery from the COVID recession, but will enter the public consciousness as 'record growth'. So there will be no collective memory of the economic pain of Brexit except amongst those in business directly impacted by the additional paperwork or lost markets (and those who are looking for any excuse to criticize the government anyway).
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Perhaps he’d made a bucket of ducats from providing ppe against ye plague
These Tory ar**holes feasting on ppe are far worse than any slave trader ever was.
On a point of order Malc, you 'matriculate with' PPE, you don't 'feast on it.'
Ydoethur , thiees and scumbags is close enough for me, but thanks for the education none the less.
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Perhaps he’d made a bucket of ducats from providing ppe against ye plague
These Tory ar**holes feasting on ppe are far worse than any slave trader ever was.
In that case, why don't we celebrate them with some statues?
The the idea that people 200 years from now will be demanding the removal from public view, statues of Johnson and Hancock, cheers me immeasurably.
Mr. Eagles, you'll be devastated when you hear of what Caesar did to the Thuringii.
Personally I'm not keen on Churchill College, Cambridge. They should abolish that.
Forget the fact that Churchill was a war criminal and racist they should abolish it for being a JCL college.
And Jesus College. That should definitely go.
Fun fact about Jesus College, Jesus doesn't appear anywhere in the official name. Call it Virgin College and everybody will be happy as 'virgin' does appear in the official name, twice.
New College is officially called BVM - College of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Worshipped By The Waters of the River Thames.
But that a mouthful so everyone* just called it the “New” College
* except for Merton who just had to be different
When I was at Merton we called New College, New College.
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Tobias Rustat.
However, Rustat’s involvement in the Royal African Company, which transported almost 150,000 slaves to the Americas, led the college to address his legacy by removing a portrait and renaming the “Rustat feast” previously held in his honour.
IIRC The RAC (not the rival to the AA) transported more slaves to America during the transAtlantic slave trade than any other company.
The head of Jesus College is a descendent of slaves. It would seem odd to make her sit through a feast named in honour of someone who profited from the murder and exploitation of her ancestors. Although I suspect her ancestry helps to explain some of the frothing on the topic in the right wing press. Nothing gets these people upset more than a woman of colour in a position of authority.
To be clear, you have no evidence but are keen to call people racists because you have a "suspiscion".
It's a pattern. Meghan Markle. Naomi Osaka. Which MP gets more hate mail than all others? (Diane Abbot). I doubt Jesus College is the only Oxbridge College doing this. But this is the one in the news. You have to ask yourself why. So yes, I do have a "suspiscion" or perhaps "suspicion" as I like to call it.
Fake News about Diane Abbot.
So who gets the most hate mail - as it wouldn't surprise me she gets the most...
The problem with Diane Abbot is that she has a long and glamorous history of saying utterly stupid things in public. This has (not entirely unsurprisingly) make her a sort of joke figure. It's nothing to do with skin colour or gender - to a lesser extent (because they are marginally less stupid in public) people like Richard Burgon or David Lammy get the same treatment - I still can't hear David Lammy speak without thinking of the mocking "Lammy Vision" video that someone produced after he called Boris "Literally Hitler"...
Abbott getting by far the most (and the most visceral and personal) abuse of any MP in the country has nothing to do with her being black and female? - C'mon.
She hasn't said more stupid stuff in public over the years than plenty of others. Boris Johnson springs to mind. He seems to be celebrated for it.
You're going to need to provide a citation for "Abbott getting by far the most abuse of any MP in the country", because it's out of line with all actual studies I am aware of. See also the various links on this subject already posted on this thread.
While Boris tied the knot at the weekend, Cameron’s old Notting Hill Set cast more lonely figures in Porto, as they arrived to watch the Champions League Final. George Osborne turned up on his tod, notably without his fiancé Thea Rogers. Neither has Rogers been seen in their new Somerset home for some time…
Guido also spots Gove made the trip, again on his own, making full use of the government’s green travel list.
Unfortunately for Michael, one local eye-witness reports he was shortly “hounded out” of the bar pictured above.
Mr. Eagles, you'll be devastated when you hear of what Caesar did to the Thuringii.
Personally I'm not keen on Churchill College, Cambridge. They should abolish that.
Forget the fact that Churchill was a war criminal and racist they should abolish it for being a JCL college.
And Jesus College. That should definitely go.
Fun fact about Jesus College, Jesus doesn't appear anywhere in the official name. Call it Virgin College and everybody will be happy as 'virgin' does appear in the official name, twice.
New College is officially called BVM - College of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Worshipped By The Waters of the River Thames.
But that a mouthful so everyone* just called it the “New” College
* except for Merton who just had to be different
It’s the New College of the Blessed etc. There is another.
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Perhaps he’d made a bucket of ducats from providing ppe against ye plague
These Tory ar**holes feasting on ppe are far worse than any slave trader ever was.
In that case, why don't we celebrate them with some statues?
The the idea that people 200 years from now will be demanding the removal from public view, statues of Johnson and Hancock, cheers me immeasurably.
Exactly, some people have to little to occupy them or else have really boring lives. Statues are there for pigeons to crap on , no normal person cares what happened two or three hundred years ago , get over it losers.
We are in a different era today. Some people want the morality of the past to confine us today, others want to judge those in the past with the morality of the present. Both are preposterous.
Roman attitudes towards slavery were interesting, shifted considerably over the course of several centuries, and varied enormously between individuals.
Romans, unlike Greeks or Southern plantation owners, never pretended to believe that some people were natural slaves, nor that it was a positive good (much of the Roman citizenry was made up of ex-slaves). Any Roman would have accepted that being a slave was a bad condition, but they viewed it as necessary, perhaps a necessary evil.
That said, during the worst period of Roman slavery, the last century of the Republic, many masters had no qualms at all at working their slaves to death, and replacing them with fresh stock, provided by Roman conquests. As the conquests dried up, in the Imperial period, attitudes towards slaves generally improved, and increasingly, they were seen as people in a state of unfreedom, as opposed to chattels.
At any point, though, there were people like Cicero who genuinely respected Tiro, on the one hand, and then monsters like Old Cato or Vedius Pollio, at the other end of the spectrum.
The very worst example of slavery in operation would probably be somewhere like Haiti in 1790, which reads like a vast concentration camp.
Probably the Roman mines at Rio Tinto were equally horrific. Mining in classical slavery was how they got rid of "troublesome" or "unwanted" slaves....
Laurium was probably no fun either. I am not convinced that the French w Indies were markedly worse than the Anglo Scottish.
As an aside, I had never even heard of Naomi Osaka before today. She's a tennis player. She said she was depressed and therefore decided not to do a press conference.
I am struggling to see a story here.
But Piers Morgan decided there was one. Apparently, she's a "brat" and a "madam", because she chose to skip questions from the press.
Now Piers is entitled to his opinions. But didn't Piers Morgan walk off a Good Morning Britain show when faced with questions he didn't like?
Naomi Osaka defeated Sabrina Williams last year IIRC. Her leaving the French Open is a HUGE blow for the event and the sport.
She's had some mental health issues, specifically difficulty dealing with being cross-examined about her ups & esp downs on the tennis court. There appears to have been a basic communications breakdown between her and French Open officials.
For which both share blame, but more goes on them methinks, because it sure seems she has a legitimate personal issue AND she's one of the more interesting & potentially great players on the court today? Or NOT on the court in this case.
I know we have the cult of the individual today and the mere mention of mental health means we must feel sorry for whoever claims it as an issue (despite how badly behaved they are) but the French open exists to play a tennis tournament. The prize money the players get (females now get as much as males and it is a lot) comes mainly from TV rights . So it stands to reason players have to engage with it. The French open needs to be about the tennis not her. Just wish the French Open would say that without having to take her issues into account.
I know nothing of this, but my understanding is that these tournaments should be about evaluating via series of competitive match ups who is the best tennis player.
If someone wishes only to play tennis, and not to appear at press conferences, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
Of course, if that is unacceptable to the competition organizer, then they are free to make appearance a condition of play, and players are free to find that either tolerable or intolerable.
My issue - such that it was - was more about Piers Morgan being a dickwad.
The problem is that the competition is professional, and the prize money is being paid for by the media.
Appearance at the press conferences is very much a condition of playing in the tournament, which Miss Osaka has now decided is unacceptable to her and withdrawn.
When you say "very much", is it a contractual requirement of playing, or something that is just assumed?
It is contractual. Players sign up to the rules. Article III.H of the Grand Slam rules requires players to attend a post-match media conference within 30 minutes of the end of the match unless they are injured and physically unable to appear or the tournament referee agrees otherwise. Non-appearance makes the player liable to a fine of up to $20k.
30 mins feels unnecessary, especially as some of the mens matches last five hours plus. Why not make it same day? That is probably easier on the players who have lost a long tough match without losing access for the journalists. They might even get better answers if they let the players get a bit refreshed.
You seem to be under the impression that the media want “better answers”. The conditions under which they are forced to perform are deliberate. The media want them to explode under pressure or emotion of the immediate aftermath. Or refuse to answer questions so that, yes, they can sell column inches describing their mental state. The one thing they absolutely DON’T want out of the press conferences is considered sensible answers to considered sensible questions.
And the level of emotion to be exploited in the aftermath of high intensity tennis matches is probably at least the equal of, if not greater than, any other high profile sport.
And in doing that, the media are probably delivering what a large chunk of the watching public want. I'm sure that includes me. Can anyone remember any football manager comment from 25 years ago other than Kevin Keegan's "Love it" rant?
Western Civilization really would be a good idea.
I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily delivering what the public want. They are delivering what will make the public pay any attention to press conferences. Which isn’t quite the same thing. Without the press conferences many of them would be out of a job. Or might actually have to pay greater attention to and write about the tennis matches themselves.
Many individual sports attract obsessive people with less than perfect social skills. Do we insist on excluding them because they prefer to play rather than talk?
I recall there was a professional golfer who admitted that he hated giving winner's speeches so much that he often aimed for second place. I played a bit of golf when young and will admit to the same.
When you are competing in front of a crowd that it isn't a social situation and is absolutely fine, because you are just concentrating on beating your opponent or playing your best shot and you are in your element.
I can totally sympathise with Miss Osaka. After all, she is very young, too.
What does it really add to the event having the media talk to someone who doesn't want to talk? If they are good enough to be paid well they'll have gone through media coaching and will just come out with the usual cr*p anyway.
Andy Murray was a great tennis player but fewer interviews would have been beneficial to his image. Like sausages, sometimes it is better not to see how things are made.
If she wants to talk in a quieter environment at a later time then fine.
Rubbish, she has a contract to fulfill, less whining and a bit more work would do her a power of good.
I agree there is a contract in this case and that in this situation she had to withdraw.
That wasn't really my point. Do the terms of the contract really benefit the sport?
I want to watch people who are great at tennis, not people being tortured in an interview.
Tiger Woods was pretty terrible at interviews but watch him on the course (I saw him win the Open at Hoylake with an absolute masterclass of control) and he was totally different. Nick Faldo was the same.
What do we want out of sport? Just a soap opera?
They have little issue with their own sites and milking the celebrity, for me she was just miffed she was not getting paid extra for it , I have little time for prima donna's, and not even a great one at that. It goes with the job and the millions , if she does not like it go and get a job elsewhere. No sympathy here whatsoever.
Good morning Malc
I have read your comments about Noami Osaka this morning and to be honest, they are wholly unacceptable and very hurtful to all those who are suffering serious, and in some cases grave, mental health issues
You are demonstrating a very disturbing attitude, which is quite common, against those in a mental heath crisis and is not at all helpful and does not reflect well on yourself
G, I don't need a lecture from you on mental health issues, I have several family members with problems. They are not spoilt millionaires happy to stuff their pockets with cash who don't want to have to utter a couple of words after a game. If she can go in front of a huge crowd every day she is fit to say a few words into a microphone. Go preach elsewhere.
PS: You will notice I am in no mood to take crap from anyone.
If you really do claim to understand mental health, you would not have made some of your comments today
This is nothing to do with millionaires, or those less fortunate, it is a young person who needs understanding, empathy, and counselling
And your own mood is not an excuse to criticise those who are ill, which mental health is very much an illness.
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Perhaps he’d made a bucket of ducats from providing ppe against ye plague
These Tory ar**holes feasting on ppe are far worse than any slave trader ever was.
In that case, why don't we celebrate them with some statues?
The the idea that people 200 years from now will be demanding the removal from public view, statues of Johnson and Hancock, cheers me immeasurably.
The idea that. 100 years from now. people will have erected statues to Johnson and Hancock depresses me immeasurably
The third UK wave is starting. Is Boris going to lock down late again?
I don’t want to come over all Keir Starmer, but there is a pattern of criminality developing here, isn’t there
The thing is, with a CFR of now 0.3% and, crucially, hospital occupancy with covid flat in England even though we’ve had time for cases to feed in, is there any requirement for lockdown?
I am by no means a denialist, but the entire reason for the five week intervals was so we could see how expected rising cases fed in - or did not - to hospital occupancy.
If hospital occupancy remains flat, or even decreases, the case for any increase in restrictions is not made.
Of course, he's a Professor of Sociology at University of Manchester. This is why the centre-right is putting up such a ferocious resistance to these nihilistic morons.
They started the culture war; we will finish it.
I can certainly take his point to a degree, but I dont really understand one if his propositions, that Britain is particularly statue obsessed, as part of seeking to petrify history (nice pun).
National historical myths and statues of past figured dont seem particularly unique to Britain.
In seeking to building a better tomorrow, agonising over statues of historical figures is an utter irrelevancy - people suspect that anyone who really does so has another hidden agenda, which of course they do. All it does is polarise and divide people, and poisons the well.
We should focus on building on our history not driving a wrecking ball through it.
I visited "NT" Chatsworth House last week and as an experiment I decided to be you for a couple of hours as I went round. By which I mean I was on the lookout for our history being trashed. I didn't find much to get angry about (and I was you, remember).
If pushed, I can report that there was one example of what riles you (and me when I'm you) under a statue of a colonialist worthy, where it was clear the text had been altered to mention that in addition to his good works this guy had done his share of bad stuff.
"Thomas Tyrant III lived here from 1752 to 1775 and was responsible for the magnificent library extension. During his life of service to the Crown he endowed a great many things with a great many things. He was also no slouch when it came to exploiting and pillaging overseas. He could be a bit of a bastard like that, could Thomas Tyrant III"
Kind of like that. It read a bit oddly to me. Perhaps better to take him down.
I thought chatsworth is owned by the family not the National Trust?
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Tobias Rustat.
However, Rustat’s involvement in the Royal African Company, which transported almost 150,000 slaves to the Americas, led the college to address his legacy by removing a portrait and renaming the “Rustat feast” previously held in his honour.
IIRC The RAC (not the rival to the AA) transported more slaves to America during the transAtlantic slave trade than any other company.
The head of Jesus College is a descendent of slaves. It would seem odd to make her sit through a feast named in honour of someone who profited from the murder and exploitation of her ancestors. Although I suspect her ancestry helps to explain some of the frothing on the topic in the right wing press. Nothing gets these people upset more than a woman of colour in a position of authority.
To be clear, you have no evidence but are keen to call people racists because you have a "suspiscion".
It's a pattern. Meghan Markle. Naomi Osaka. Which MP gets more hate mail than all others? (Diane Abbot). I doubt Jesus College is the only Oxbridge College doing this. But this is the one in the news. You have to ask yourself why. So yes, I do have a "suspiscion" or perhaps "suspicion" as I like to call it.
Fake News about Diane Abbot.
So who gets the most hate mail - as it wouldn't surprise me she gets the most...
The problem with Diane Abbot is that she has a long and glamorous history of saying utterly stupid things in public. This has (not entirely unsurprisingly) make her a sort of joke figure. It's nothing to do with skin colour or gender - to a lesser extent (because they are marginally less stupid in public) people like Richard Burgon or David Lammy get the same treatment - I still can't hear David Lammy speak without thinking of the mocking "Lammy Vision" video that someone produced after he called Boris "Literally Hitler"...
Abbott getting by far the most (and the most visceral and personal) abuse of any MP in the country has nothing to do with her being black and female? - C'mon.
She hasn't said more stupid stuff in public over the years than plenty of others. Boris Johnson springs to mind. He seems to be celebrated for it.
Apart from that you cannot argue that she is useless and has come out with some real warmers over the years. She has milked the public purse and to what benefit other than to herself. No doubt some of it could well be racist but she is a first class duffer.
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Tobias Rustat.
However, Rustat’s involvement in the Royal African Company, which transported almost 150,000 slaves to the Americas, led the college to address his legacy by removing a portrait and renaming the “Rustat feast” previously held in his honour.
IIRC The RAC (not the rival to the AA) transported more slaves to America during the transAtlantic slave trade than any other company.
The head of Jesus College is a descendent of slaves. It would seem odd to make her sit through a feast named in honour of someone who profited from the murder and exploitation of her ancestors. Although I suspect her ancestry helps to explain some of the frothing on the topic in the right wing press. Nothing gets these people upset more than a woman of colour in a position of authority.
To be clear, you have no evidence but are keen to call people racists because you have a "suspiscion".
It's a pattern. Meghan Markle. Naomi Osaka. Which MP gets more hate mail than all others? (Diane Abbot). I doubt Jesus College is the only Oxbridge College doing this. But this is the one in the news. You have to ask yourself why. So yes, I do have a "suspiscion" or perhaps "suspicion" as I like to call it.
Fake News about Diane Abbot.
So who gets the most hate mail - as it wouldn't surprise me she gets the most...
The problem with Diane Abbot is that she has a long and glamorous history of saying utterly stupid things in public. This has (not entirely unsurprisingly) make her a sort of joke figure. It's nothing to do with skin colour or gender - to a lesser extent (because they are marginally less stupid in public) people like Richard Burgon or David Lammy get the same treatment - I still can't hear David Lammy speak without thinking of the mocking "Lammy Vision" video that someone produced after he called Boris "Literally Hitler"...
She definitely gets the most hate mail. She counts all the letters herself.....
There's something very Brexity and populist about that headline. It's as if Johnson wrote it. Perhaps he did, knowing how things are these days.
Point is, tomato ketchup is so relatable for the masses. Absolutely no whiff of liberal elite about it. Ketchup in, Kefir out.
I see this piece of news going down a storm in the Red Wall. "It's coming home, it's coming home, it's coming ..." they'll be singing.
I'm being totally serious. It's a small thing, this, but the things are mounting up. Johnson is reaching places that in a saner, better world he shouldn't and wouldn't.
So creating jobs and bringing investment in is bad because Boris might get a few extra votes? That's one way to look at it, I guess.
I didn't read the comment that way. I read it as lamenting that some good news unfortunately has the side effect of helping Boris cement his political hold on things, particularly in relation to the red wall and long term that is bad, not that investment is bad because of that.
Yep. Exactly so. Plus (if I'm honest) I'm getting slightly angsty as we wait for Johnson's luck to turn. He's peaked, no worries there, but it's a high peak and so we do need a decent angle on the slope going down.
Ramsden said the Bank would not be complacent about inflation. “If it is not temporary we know what to do about that. We can push bank rate up from its historically low level [0.1%] and we know what that will do to demand.”
Unsurprisingly, the bank's default position is to do nothing (i.e. 0.1% is the new normal).
It's the big known unknown. How would voters react to the BoE fighting inflation by raising interest rates? Would the government say "not our fault, blame those nasty economists"?
Probably!
No probably about it. That was the entire point of making the BoE independent back in 97 - to remove the politics from it so that when bad things occur the blame doesn't land at Brown's / Sunak's door.
Not sure it'll work out well for the Tories!
The feeding frenzy that has been the housing market for the last year could look rather foolish if the BoE has no option but to hike rates.
And what could the Tory party have done about it?
It's not like they can suddenly solve the housing supply issue as I hear a lot of building material prices have increased by 10% today due to demand exceeding supply.
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Perhaps he’d made a bucket of ducats from providing ppe against ye plague
These Tory ar**holes feasting on ppe are far worse than any slave trader ever was.
In that case, why don't we celebrate them with some statues?
The the idea that people 200 years from now will be demanding the removal from public view, statues of Johnson and Hancock, cheers me immeasurably.
Exactly, some people have to little to occupy them or else have really boring lives. Statues are there for pigeons to crap on , no normal person cares what happened two or three hundred years ago , get over it losers.
Whenever stories like this appear I always find myself asking what are they trying to remove / stop from being reported.
As an aside, I had never even heard of Naomi Osaka before today. She's a tennis player. She said she was depressed and therefore decided not to do a press conference.
I am struggling to see a story here.
But Piers Morgan decided there was one. Apparently, she's a "brat" and a "madam", because she chose to skip questions from the press.
Now Piers is entitled to his opinions. But didn't Piers Morgan walk off a Good Morning Britain show when faced with questions he didn't like?
Naomi Osaka defeated Sabrina Williams last year IIRC. Her leaving the French Open is a HUGE blow for the event and the sport.
She's had some mental health issues, specifically difficulty dealing with being cross-examined about her ups & esp downs on the tennis court. There appears to have been a basic communications breakdown between her and French Open officials.
For which both share blame, but more goes on them methinks, because it sure seems she has a legitimate personal issue AND she's one of the more interesting & potentially great players on the court today? Or NOT on the court in this case.
I know we have the cult of the individual today and the mere mention of mental health means we must feel sorry for whoever claims it as an issue (despite how badly behaved they are) but the French open exists to play a tennis tournament. The prize money the players get (females now get as much as males and it is a lot) comes mainly from TV rights . So it stands to reason players have to engage with it. The French open needs to be about the tennis not her. Just wish the French Open would say that without having to take her issues into account.
I know nothing of this, but my understanding is that these tournaments should be about evaluating via series of competitive match ups who is the best tennis player.
If someone wishes only to play tennis, and not to appear at press conferences, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
Of course, if that is unacceptable to the competition organizer, then they are free to make appearance a condition of play, and players are free to find that either tolerable or intolerable.
My issue - such that it was - was more about Piers Morgan being a dickwad.
The problem is that the competition is professional, and the prize money is being paid for by the media.
Appearance at the press conferences is very much a condition of playing in the tournament, which Miss Osaka has now decided is unacceptable to her and withdrawn.
When you say "very much", is it a contractual requirement of playing, or something that is just assumed?
It is contractual. Players sign up to the rules. Article III.H of the Grand Slam rules requires players to attend a post-match media conference within 30 minutes of the end of the match unless they are injured and physically unable to appear or the tournament referee agrees otherwise. Non-appearance makes the player liable to a fine of up to $20k.
30 mins feels unnecessary, especially as some of the mens matches last five hours plus. Why not make it same day? That is probably easier on the players who have lost a long tough match without losing access for the journalists. They might even get better answers if they let the players get a bit refreshed.
You seem to be under the impression that the media want “better answers”. The conditions under which they are forced to perform are deliberate. The media want them to explode under pressure or emotion of the immediate aftermath. Or refuse to answer questions so that, yes, they can sell column inches describing their mental state. The one thing they absolutely DON’T want out of the press conferences is considered sensible answers to considered sensible questions.
And the level of emotion to be exploited in the aftermath of high intensity tennis matches is probably at least the equal of, if not greater than, any other high profile sport.
And in doing that, the media are probably delivering what a large chunk of the watching public want. I'm sure that includes me. Can anyone remember any football manager comment from 25 years ago other than Kevin Keegan's "Love it" rant?
Western Civilization really would be a good idea.
I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily delivering what the public want. They are delivering what will make the public pay any attention to press conferences. Which isn’t quite the same thing. Without the press conferences many of them would be out of a job. Or might actually have to pay greater attention to and write about the tennis matches themselves.
Many individual sports attract obsessive people with less than perfect social skills. Do we insist on excluding them because they prefer to play rather than talk?
I recall there was a professional golfer who admitted that he hated giving winner's speeches so much that he often aimed for second place. I played a bit of golf when young and will admit to the same.
When you are competing in front of a crowd that it isn't a social situation and is absolutely fine, because you are just concentrating on beating your opponent or playing your best shot and you are in your element.
I can totally sympathise with Miss Osaka. After all, she is very young, too.
What does it really add to the event having the media talk to someone who doesn't want to talk? If they are good enough to be paid well they'll have gone through media coaching and will just come out with the usual cr*p anyway.
Andy Murray was a great tennis player but fewer interviews would have been beneficial to his image. Like sausages, sometimes it is better not to see how things are made.
If she wants to talk in a quieter environment at a later time then fine.
Rubbish, she has a contract to fulfill, less whining and a bit more work would do her a power of good.
I agree there is a contract in this case and that in this situation she had to withdraw.
That wasn't really my point. Do the terms of the contract really benefit the sport?
I want to watch people who are great at tennis, not people being tortured in an interview.
Tiger Woods was pretty terrible at interviews but watch him on the course (I saw him win the Open at Hoylake with an absolute masterclass of control) and he was totally different. Nick Faldo was the same.
What do we want out of sport? Just a soap opera?
They have little issue with their own sites and milking the celebrity, for me she was just miffed she was not getting paid extra for it , I have little time for prima donna's, and not even a great one at that. It goes with the job and the millions , if she does not like it go and get a job elsewhere. No sympathy here whatsoever.
Good morning Malc
I have read your comments about Noami Osaka this morning and to be honest, they are wholly unacceptable and very hurtful to all those who are suffering serious, and in some cases grave, mental health issues
You are demonstrating a very disturbing attitude, which is quite common, against those in a mental heath crisis and is not at all helpful and does not reflect well on yourself
G, I don't need a lecture from you on mental health issues, I have several family members with problems. They are not spoilt millionaires happy to stuff their pockets with cash who don't want to have to utter a couple of words after a game. If she can go in front of a huge crowd every day she is fit to say a few words into a microphone. Go preach elsewhere.
PS: You will notice I am in no mood to take crap from anyone.
If you really do claim to understand mental health, you would not have made some of your comments today
This is nothing to do with millionaires, or those less fortunate, it is a young person who needs understanding, empathy, and counselling
And your own mood is not an excuse to criticise those who are ill, which mental health is very much an illness.
G you are talking absolute mince, she is a spoilt millionaire , perfectly able to go out in front of thousands every day without any problems but so selfish she does not want to say a few words to people who support her. Give it a rest. Prefers to do it on her own media to make even more money. PS: You a doctor now
We are in a different era today. Some people want the morality of the past to confine us today, others want to judge those in the past with the morality of the present. Both are preposterous.
Roman attitudes towards slavery were interesting, shifted considerably over the course of several centuries, and varied enormously between individuals.
Romans, unlike Greeks or Southern plantation owners, never pretended to believe that some people were natural slaves, nor that it was a positive good (much of the Roman citizenry was made up of ex-slaves). Any Roman would have accepted that being a slave was a bad condition, but they viewed it as necessary, perhaps a necessary evil.
That said, during the worst period of Roman slavery, the last century of the Republic, many masters had no qualms at all at working their slaves to death, and replacing them with fresh stock, provided by Roman conquests. As the conquests dried up, in the Imperial period, attitudes towards slaves generally improved, and increasingly, they were seen as people in a state of unfreedom, as opposed to chattels.
At any point, though, there were people like Cicero who genuinely respected Tiro, on the one hand, and then monsters like Old Cato or Vedius Pollio, at the other end of the spectrum.
The very worst example of slavery in operation would probably be somewhere like Haiti in 1790, which reads like a vast concentration camp.
Probably the Roman mines at Rio Tinto were equally horrific. Mining in classical slavery was how they got rid of "troublesome" or "unwanted" slaves....
Laurium was probably no fun either. I am not convinced that the French w Indies were markedly worse than the Anglo Scottish.
Yes - the ancient greeks were quite specific that life for a slave at Laurie was very nasty and very short.
As an aside, I had never even heard of Naomi Osaka before today. She's a tennis player. She said she was depressed and therefore decided not to do a press conference.
I am struggling to see a story here.
But Piers Morgan decided there was one. Apparently, she's a "brat" and a "madam", because she chose to skip questions from the press.
Now Piers is entitled to his opinions. But didn't Piers Morgan walk off a Good Morning Britain show when faced with questions he didn't like?
Naomi Osaka defeated Sabrina Williams last year IIRC. Her leaving the French Open is a HUGE blow for the event and the sport.
She's had some mental health issues, specifically difficulty dealing with being cross-examined about her ups & esp downs on the tennis court. There appears to have been a basic communications breakdown between her and French Open officials.
For which both share blame, but more goes on them methinks, because it sure seems she has a legitimate personal issue AND she's one of the more interesting & potentially great players on the court today? Or NOT on the court in this case.
I know we have the cult of the individual today and the mere mention of mental health means we must feel sorry for whoever claims it as an issue (despite how badly behaved they are) but the French open exists to play a tennis tournament. The prize money the players get (females now get as much as males and it is a lot) comes mainly from TV rights . So it stands to reason players have to engage with it. The French open needs to be about the tennis not her. Just wish the French Open would say that without having to take her issues into account.
I know nothing of this, but my understanding is that these tournaments should be about evaluating via series of competitive match ups who is the best tennis player.
If someone wishes only to play tennis, and not to appear at press conferences, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
Of course, if that is unacceptable to the competition organizer, then they are free to make appearance a condition of play, and players are free to find that either tolerable or intolerable.
My issue - such that it was - was more about Piers Morgan being a dickwad.
The problem is that the competition is professional, and the prize money is being paid for by the media.
Appearance at the press conferences is very much a condition of playing in the tournament, which Miss Osaka has now decided is unacceptable to her and withdrawn.
When you say "very much", is it a contractual requirement of playing, or something that is just assumed?
It is contractual. Players sign up to the rules. Article III.H of the Grand Slam rules requires players to attend a post-match media conference within 30 minutes of the end of the match unless they are injured and physically unable to appear or the tournament referee agrees otherwise. Non-appearance makes the player liable to a fine of up to $20k.
30 mins feels unnecessary, especially as some of the mens matches last five hours plus. Why not make it same day? That is probably easier on the players who have lost a long tough match without losing access for the journalists. They might even get better answers if they let the players get a bit refreshed.
You seem to be under the impression that the media want “better answers”. The conditions under which they are forced to perform are deliberate. The media want them to explode under pressure or emotion of the immediate aftermath. Or refuse to answer questions so that, yes, they can sell column inches describing their mental state. The one thing they absolutely DON’T want out of the press conferences is considered sensible answers to considered sensible questions.
And the level of emotion to be exploited in the aftermath of high intensity tennis matches is probably at least the equal of, if not greater than, any other high profile sport.
And in doing that, the media are probably delivering what a large chunk of the watching public want. I'm sure that includes me. Can anyone remember any football manager comment from 25 years ago other than Kevin Keegan's "Love it" rant?
Western Civilization really would be a good idea.
I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily delivering what the public want. They are delivering what will make the public pay any attention to press conferences. Which isn’t quite the same thing. Without the press conferences many of them would be out of a job. Or might actually have to pay greater attention to and write about the tennis matches themselves.
Many individual sports attract obsessive people with less than perfect social skills. Do we insist on excluding them because they prefer to play rather than talk?
I recall there was a professional golfer who admitted that he hated giving winner's speeches so much that he often aimed for second place. I played a bit of golf when young and will admit to the same.
When you are competing in front of a crowd that it isn't a social situation and is absolutely fine, because you are just concentrating on beating your opponent or playing your best shot and you are in your element.
I can totally sympathise with Miss Osaka. After all, she is very young, too.
What does it really add to the event having the media talk to someone who doesn't want to talk? If they are good enough to be paid well they'll have gone through media coaching and will just come out with the usual cr*p anyway.
Andy Murray was a great tennis player but fewer interviews would have been beneficial to his image. Like sausages, sometimes it is better not to see how things are made.
If she wants to talk in a quieter environment at a later time then fine.
Rubbish, she has a contract to fulfill, less whining and a bit more work would do her a power of good.
I agree there is a contract in this case and that in this situation she had to withdraw.
That wasn't really my point. Do the terms of the contract really benefit the sport?
I want to watch people who are great at tennis, not people being tortured in an interview.
Tiger Woods was pretty terrible at interviews but watch him on the course (I saw him win the Open at Hoylake with an absolute masterclass of control) and he was totally different. Nick Faldo was the same.
What do we want out of sport? Just a soap opera?
They have little issue with their own sites and milking the celebrity, for me she was just miffed she was not getting paid extra for it , I have little time for prima donna's, and not even a great one at that. It goes with the job and the millions , if she does not like it go and get a job elsewhere. No sympathy here whatsoever.
Good morning Malc
I have read your comments about Noami Osaka this morning and to be honest, they are wholly unacceptable and very hurtful to all those who are suffering serious, and in some cases grave, mental health issues
You are demonstrating a very disturbing attitude, which is quite common, against those in a mental heath crisis and is not at all helpful and does not reflect well on yourself
G, I don't need a lecture from you on mental health issues, I have several family members with problems. They are not spoilt millionaires happy to stuff their pockets with cash who don't want to have to utter a couple of words after a game. If she can go in front of a huge crowd every day she is fit to say a few words into a microphone. Go preach elsewhere.
PS: You will notice I am in no mood to take crap from anyone.
If you really do claim to understand mental health, you would not have made some of your comments today
This is nothing to do with millionaires, or those less fortunate, it is a young person who needs understanding, empathy, and counselling
And your own mood is not an excuse to criticise those who are ill, which mental health is very much an illness.
I'm with Malcolm on this one. Osaka has made herself very public over the past 12 months, going to demonstrations and protests, putting herself at the forefront of political movements etc, as well as her tennis career. For her then to claim "sorry I can't do an interview, I have mental issues" does smack somewhat of having your cake and eating it. That is not to dispel mental issues (and, like you both, I have had it very close to my family) but it does feel like there is an element of hiding behind a shield when it comes to her behaviour.
But if it does get delayed, old Skyr will be straight out the blocks claiming chaos, indecision, I would have said no much earlier.
Starmer isn't the PM, so what you have described is a luxury available to the LOTO but not the PM.
I think Keir would gain a bit more respect if he came out with WHICH data he would base his decision on. Cases ? Hospitalisations ?
He is not even ahead in the polls a la mid term Ed Miliband at this point.
Nobody has any idea what Starmer's position is on any of this, other than to say government is rubbish, normally after the fact
He says we should have done more on Indian variant and earlier, but then pushed on it, there is never really well I would have totally closed the borders, stopped all outbound travel, instead it is nebulous more should have been done.
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Perhaps he’d made a bucket of ducats from providing ppe against ye plague
These Tory ar**holes feasting on ppe are far worse than any slave trader ever was.
We have a winner! The Most Twattish Thing Ever Said On pb.com.....
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Tobias Rustat.
However, Rustat’s involvement in the Royal African Company, which transported almost 150,000 slaves to the Americas, led the college to address his legacy by removing a portrait and renaming the “Rustat feast” previously held in his honour.
IIRC The RAC (not the rival to the AA) transported more slaves to America during the transAtlantic slave trade than any other company.
The head of Jesus College is a descendent of slaves. It would seem odd to make her sit through a feast named in honour of someone who profited from the murder and exploitation of her ancestors. Although I suspect her ancestry helps to explain some of the frothing on the topic in the right wing press. Nothing gets these people upset more than a woman of colour in a position of authority.
To be clear, you have no evidence but are keen to call people racists because you have a "suspiscion".
It's a pattern. Meghan Markle. Naomi Osaka. Which MP gets more hate mail than all others? (Diane Abbot). I doubt Jesus College is the only Oxbridge College doing this. But this is the one in the news. You have to ask yourself why. So yes, I do have a "suspiscion" or perhaps "suspicion" as I like to call it.
Fake News about Diane Abbot.
So who gets the most hate mail - as it wouldn't surprise me she gets the most...
The problem with Diane Abbot is that she has a long and glamorous history of saying utterly stupid things in public. This has (not entirely unsurprisingly) make her a sort of joke figure. It's nothing to do with skin colour or gender - to a lesser extent (because they are marginally less stupid in public) people like Richard Burgon or David Lammy get the same treatment - I still can't hear David Lammy speak without thinking of the mocking "Lammy Vision" video that someone produced after he called Boris "Literally Hitler"...
Abbott getting by far the most (and the most visceral and personal) abuse of any MP in the country has nothing to do with her being black and female? - C'mon.
She hasn't said more stupid stuff in public over the years than plenty of others. Boris Johnson springs to mind. He seems to be celebrated for it.
It seems that the evidence posted a little earlier suggests she doesn't actually make the top ten for abuse received.
I don't recall Boris going on national radio to announce a policy of hiring thousands of coppers on £3k a year for instance - and actually I can't recall him ever having a car crash interview that bad.
We are in a different era today. Some people want the morality of the past to confine us today, others want to judge those in the past with the morality of the present. Both are preposterous.
Roman attitudes towards slavery were interesting, shifted considerably over the course of several centuries, and varied enormously between individuals.
Romans, unlike Greeks or Southern plantation owners, never pretended to believe that some people were natural slaves, nor that it was a positive good (much of the Roman citizenry was made up of ex-slaves). Any Roman would have accepted that being a slave was a bad condition, but they viewed it as necessary, perhaps a necessary evil.
That said, during the worst period of Roman slavery, the last century of the Republic, many masters had no qualms at all at working their slaves to death, and replacing them with fresh stock, provided by Roman conquests. As the conquests dried up, in the Imperial period, attitudes towards slaves generally improved, and increasingly, they were seen as people in a state of unfreedom, as opposed to chattels.
At any point, though, there were people like Cicero who genuinely respected Tiro, on the one hand, and then monsters like Old Cato or Vedius Pollio, at the other end of the spectrum.
The very worst example of slavery in operation would probably be somewhere like Haiti in 1790, which reads like a vast concentration camp.
Probably the Roman mines at Rio Tinto were equally horrific. Mining in classical slavery was how they got rid of "troublesome" or "unwanted" slaves....
Laurium was probably no fun either. I am not convinced that the French w Indies were markedly worse than the Anglo Scottish.
Being a mine or quarry slave was a slow death sentence. Execution would be kinder. Next up was working in the fields as part of a chain gang. You'd last somewhat longer than a mine or quarry slave, but you were still worked to death, unless you had some special skill, or were lucky enough to become an overseer.
Household slaves certainly had it best. Many of them were skilled, and had a good chance of achieving freedom. Uniquely, the Romans gave citizenship to slaves freed by Roman citizens. Because masters only interacted with household slaves on a regular basis, they could probably put the rest of them out of mind.
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Perhaps he’d made a bucket of ducats from providing ppe against ye plague
These Tory ar**holes feasting on ppe are far worse than any slave trader ever was.
We have a winner! The Most Twattish Thing Ever Said On pb.com.....
But if it does get delayed, old Skyr will be straight out the blocks claiming chaos, indecision, I would have said no much earlier.
Starmer isn't the PM, so what you have described is a luxury available to the LOTO but not the PM.
I think Keir would gain a bit more respect if he came out with WHICH data he would base his decision on. Cases ? Hospitalisations ?
He is not even ahead in the polls a la mid term Ed Miliband at this point.
Nobody has any idea what Starmer's position is on any of this, other than to say government is rubbish, normally after the fact
He says we should have done more on Indian variant and earlier, but then pushed on it, there is never really well I would have totally closed the borders, stopped all outbound travel, instead it is nebulous more should have been done.
Being the Opposition leader during a natural disaster isn’t the easiest of jobs, but Starmer doesn’t even look like he’s trying. He doesn’t seem to have an opinion on anything.
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Tobias Rustat.
However, Rustat’s involvement in the Royal African Company, which transported almost 150,000 slaves to the Americas, led the college to address his legacy by removing a portrait and renaming the “Rustat feast” previously held in his honour.
IIRC The RAC (not the rival to the AA) transported more slaves to America during the transAtlantic slave trade than any other company.
The head of Jesus College is a descendent of slaves. It would seem odd to make her sit through a feast named in honour of someone who profited from the murder and exploitation of her ancestors. Although I suspect her ancestry helps to explain some of the frothing on the topic in the right wing press. Nothing gets these people upset more than a woman of colour in a position of authority.
To be clear, you have no evidence but are keen to call people racists because you have a "suspiscion".
It's a pattern. Meghan Markle. Naomi Osaka. Which MP gets more hate mail than all others? (Diane Abbot). I doubt Jesus College is the only Oxbridge College doing this. But this is the one in the news. You have to ask yourself why. So yes, I do have a "suspiscion" or perhaps "suspicion" as I like to call it.
Fake News about Diane Abbot.
So who gets the most hate mail - as it wouldn't surprise me she gets the most...
The problem with Diane Abbot is that she has a long and glamorous history of saying utterly stupid things in public. This has (not entirely unsurprisingly) make her a sort of joke figure. It's nothing to do with skin colour or gender - to a lesser extent (because they are marginally less stupid in public) people like Richard Burgon or David Lammy get the same treatment - I still can't hear David Lammy speak without thinking of the mocking "Lammy Vision" video that someone produced after he called Boris "Literally Hitler"...
Abbott getting by far the most (and the most visceral and personal) abuse of any MP in the country has nothing to do with her being black and female? - C'mon.
She hasn't said more stupid stuff in public over the years than plenty of others. Boris Johnson springs to mind. He seems to be celebrated for it.
Apart from that you cannot argue that she is useless and has come out with some real warmers over the years. She has milked the public purse and to what benefit other than to herself. No doubt some of it could well be racist but she is a first class duffer.
She was a trailblazer in her time. It took talent and diligence and courage to break the barriers she had to break. And there's little doubt that much of the abuse she gets is driven by racism and misogyny because so much of it features her race and gender. With a "fat" often thrown in for good measure. It's a sad sad thing.
As an aside, I had never even heard of Naomi Osaka before today. She's a tennis player. She said she was depressed and therefore decided not to do a press conference.
I am struggling to see a story here.
But Piers Morgan decided there was one. Apparently, she's a "brat" and a "madam", because she chose to skip questions from the press.
Now Piers is entitled to his opinions. But didn't Piers Morgan walk off a Good Morning Britain show when faced with questions he didn't like?
Naomi Osaka defeated Sabrina Williams last year IIRC. Her leaving the French Open is a HUGE blow for the event and the sport.
She's had some mental health issues, specifically difficulty dealing with being cross-examined about her ups & esp downs on the tennis court. There appears to have been a basic communications breakdown between her and French Open officials.
For which both share blame, but more goes on them methinks, because it sure seems she has a legitimate personal issue AND she's one of the more interesting & potentially great players on the court today? Or NOT on the court in this case.
I know we have the cult of the individual today and the mere mention of mental health means we must feel sorry for whoever claims it as an issue (despite how badly behaved they are) but the French open exists to play a tennis tournament. The prize money the players get (females now get as much as males and it is a lot) comes mainly from TV rights . So it stands to reason players have to engage with it. The French open needs to be about the tennis not her. Just wish the French Open would say that without having to take her issues into account.
I know nothing of this, but my understanding is that these tournaments should be about evaluating via series of competitive match ups who is the best tennis player.
If someone wishes only to play tennis, and not to appear at press conferences, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
Of course, if that is unacceptable to the competition organizer, then they are free to make appearance a condition of play, and players are free to find that either tolerable or intolerable.
My issue - such that it was - was more about Piers Morgan being a dickwad.
The problem is that the competition is professional, and the prize money is being paid for by the media.
Appearance at the press conferences is very much a condition of playing in the tournament, which Miss Osaka has now decided is unacceptable to her and withdrawn.
When you say "very much", is it a contractual requirement of playing, or something that is just assumed?
It is contractual. Players sign up to the rules. Article III.H of the Grand Slam rules requires players to attend a post-match media conference within 30 minutes of the end of the match unless they are injured and physically unable to appear or the tournament referee agrees otherwise. Non-appearance makes the player liable to a fine of up to $20k.
30 mins feels unnecessary, especially as some of the mens matches last five hours plus. Why not make it same day? That is probably easier on the players who have lost a long tough match without losing access for the journalists. They might even get better answers if they let the players get a bit refreshed.
You seem to be under the impression that the media want “better answers”. The conditions under which they are forced to perform are deliberate. The media want them to explode under pressure or emotion of the immediate aftermath. Or refuse to answer questions so that, yes, they can sell column inches describing their mental state. The one thing they absolutely DON’T want out of the press conferences is considered sensible answers to considered sensible questions.
And the level of emotion to be exploited in the aftermath of high intensity tennis matches is probably at least the equal of, if not greater than, any other high profile sport.
And in doing that, the media are probably delivering what a large chunk of the watching public want. I'm sure that includes me. Can anyone remember any football manager comment from 25 years ago other than Kevin Keegan's "Love it" rant?
Western Civilization really would be a good idea.
I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily delivering what the public want. They are delivering what will make the public pay any attention to press conferences. Which isn’t quite the same thing. Without the press conferences many of them would be out of a job. Or might actually have to pay greater attention to and write about the tennis matches themselves.
Many individual sports attract obsessive people with less than perfect social skills. Do we insist on excluding them because they prefer to play rather than talk?
I recall there was a professional golfer who admitted that he hated giving winner's speeches so much that he often aimed for second place. I played a bit of golf when young and will admit to the same.
When you are competing in front of a crowd that it isn't a social situation and is absolutely fine, because you are just concentrating on beating your opponent or playing your best shot and you are in your element.
I can totally sympathise with Miss Osaka. After all, she is very young, too.
What does it really add to the event having the media talk to someone who doesn't want to talk? If they are good enough to be paid well they'll have gone through media coaching and will just come out with the usual cr*p anyway.
Andy Murray was a great tennis player but fewer interviews would have been beneficial to his image. Like sausages, sometimes it is better not to see how things are made.
If she wants to talk in a quieter environment at a later time then fine.
Rubbish, she has a contract to fulfill, less whining and a bit more work would do her a power of good.
I agree there is a contract in this case and that in this situation she had to withdraw.
That wasn't really my point. Do the terms of the contract really benefit the sport?
I want to watch people who are great at tennis, not people being tortured in an interview.
Tiger Woods was pretty terrible at interviews but watch him on the course (I saw him win the Open at Hoylake with an absolute masterclass of control) and he was totally different. Nick Faldo was the same.
What do we want out of sport? Just a soap opera?
They have little issue with their own sites and milking the celebrity, for me she was just miffed she was not getting paid extra for it , I have little time for prima donna's, and not even a great one at that. It goes with the job and the millions , if she does not like it go and get a job elsewhere. No sympathy here whatsoever.
Good morning Malc
I have read your comments about Noami Osaka this morning and to be honest, they are wholly unacceptable and very hurtful to all those who are suffering serious, and in some cases grave, mental health issues
You are demonstrating a very disturbing attitude, which is quite common, against those in a mental heath crisis and is not at all helpful and does not reflect well on yourself
G, I don't need a lecture from you on mental health issues, I have several family members with problems. They are not spoilt millionaires happy to stuff their pockets with cash who don't want to have to utter a couple of words after a game. If she can go in front of a huge crowd every day she is fit to say a few words into a microphone. Go preach elsewhere.
PS: You will notice I am in no mood to take crap from anyone.
If you really do claim to understand mental health, you would not have made some of your comments today
This is nothing to do with millionaires, or those less fortunate, it is a young person who needs understanding, empathy, and counselling
And your own mood is not an excuse to criticise those who are ill, which mental health is very much an illness.
I'm with Malcolm on this one. Osaka has made herself very public over the past 12 months, going to demonstrations and protests, putting herself at the forefront of political movements etc, as well as her tennis career. For her then to claim "sorry I can't do an interview, I have mental issues" does smack somewhat of having your cake and eating it. That is not to dispel mental issues (and, like you both, I have had it very close to my family) but it does feel like there is an element of hiding behind a shield when it comes to her behaviour.
Of course, he's a Professor of Sociology at University of Manchester. This is why the centre-right is putting up such a ferocious resistance to these nihilistic morons.
They started the culture war; we will finish it.
I can certainly take his point to a degree, but I dont really understand one if his propositions, that Britain is particularly statue obsessed, as part of seeking to petrify history (nice pun).
National historical myths and statues of past figured dont seem particularly unique to Britain.
In seeking to building a better tomorrow, agonising over statues of historical figures is an utter irrelevancy - people suspect that anyone who really does so has another hidden agenda, which of course they do. All it does is polarise and divide people, and poisons the well.
We should focus on building on our history not driving a wrecking ball through it.
I visited "NT" Chatsworth House last week and as an experiment I decided to be you for a couple of hours as I went round. By which I mean I was on the lookout for our history being trashed. I didn't find much to get angry about (and I was you, remember).
If pushed, I can report that there was one example of what riles you (and me when I'm you) under a statue of a colonialist worthy, where it was clear the text had been altered to mention that in addition to his good works this guy had done his share of bad stuff.
"Thomas Tyrant III lived here from 1752 to 1775 and was responsible for the magnificent library extension. During his life of service to the Crown he endowed a great many things with a great many things. He was also no slouch when it came to exploiting and pillaging overseas. He could be a bit of a bastard like that, could Thomas Tyrant III"
Kind of like that. It read a bit oddly to me. Perhaps better to take him down.
I thought chatsworth is owned by the family not the National Trust?
They've done some sort of deal. The NT are in there and so is the family.
Of course, he's a Professor of Sociology at University of Manchester. This is why the centre-right is putting up such a ferocious resistance to these nihilistic morons.
They started the culture war; we will finish it.
I can certainly take his point to a degree, but I dont really understand one if his propositions, that Britain is particularly statue obsessed, as part of seeking to petrify history (nice pun).
National historical myths and statues of past figured dont seem particularly unique to Britain.
In seeking to building a better tomorrow, agonising over statues of historical figures is an utter irrelevancy - people suspect that anyone who really does so has another hidden agenda, which of course they do. All it does is polarise and divide people, and poisons the well.
We should focus on building on our history not driving a wrecking ball through it.
I visited "NT" Chatsworth House last week and as an experiment I decided to be you for a couple of hours as I went round. By which I mean I was on the lookout for our history being trashed. I didn't find much to get angry about (and I was you, remember).
If pushed, I can report that there was one example of what riles you (and me when I'm you) under a statue of a colonialist worthy, where it was clear the text had been altered to mention that in addition to his good works this guy had done his share of bad stuff.
"Thomas Tyrant III lived here from 1752 to 1775 and was responsible for the magnificent library extension. During his life of service to the Crown he endowed a great many things with a great many things. He was also no slouch when it came to exploiting and pillaging overseas. He could be a bit of a bastard like that, could Thomas Tyrant III"
Kind of like that. It read a bit oddly to me. Perhaps better to take him down.
I thought chatsworth is owned by the family not the National Trust?
They've done some sort of deal. The NT are in there and so is the family.
Of course, he's a Professor of Sociology at University of Manchester. This is why the centre-right is putting up such a ferocious resistance to these nihilistic morons.
They started the culture war; we will finish it.
I can certainly take his point to a degree, but I dont really understand one if his propositions, that Britain is particularly statue obsessed, as part of seeking to petrify history (nice pun).
National historical myths and statues of past figured dont seem particularly unique to Britain.
In seeking to building a better tomorrow, agonising over statues of historical figures is an utter irrelevancy - people suspect that anyone who really does so has another hidden agenda, which of course they do. All it does is polarise and divide people, and poisons the well.
We should focus on building on our history not driving a wrecking ball through it.
I visited "NT" Chatsworth House last week and as an experiment I decided to be you for a couple of hours as I went round. By which I mean I was on the lookout for our history being trashed. I didn't find much to get angry about (and I was you, remember).
If pushed, I can report that there was one example of what riles you (and me when I'm you) under a statue of a colonialist worthy, where it was clear the text had been altered to mention that in addition to his good works this guy had done his share of bad stuff.
"Thomas Tyrant III lived here from 1752 to 1775 and was responsible for the magnificent library extension. During his life of service to the Crown he endowed a great many things with a great many things. He was also no slouch when it came to exploiting and pillaging overseas. He could be a bit of a bastard like that, could Thomas Tyrant III"
Kind of like that. It read a bit oddly to me. Perhaps better to take him down.
I thought chatsworth is owned by the family not the National Trust?
They've done some sort of deal. The NT are in there and so is the family.
I thought it was owned via a family trust?
Have they got the NT in to run things?
Admittedly it is a while since I last went there.
Kiniblau is talking rubbish; it has nothing to do with the National Trust:
7. Is Chatsworth a National Trust or English Heritage property? Chatsworth is not part of the National Trust or English Heritage, so standard admission prices apply. View our tickets and prices.
Of course, he's a Professor of Sociology at University of Manchester. This is why the centre-right is putting up such a ferocious resistance to these nihilistic morons.
They started the culture war; we will finish it.
I can certainly take his point to a degree, but I dont really understand one if his propositions, that Britain is particularly statue obsessed, as part of seeking to petrify history (nice pun).
National historical myths and statues of past figured dont seem particularly unique to Britain.
In seeking to building a better tomorrow, agonising over statues of historical figures is an utter irrelevancy - people suspect that anyone who really does so has another hidden agenda, which of course they do. All it does is polarise and divide people, and poisons the well.
We should focus on building on our history not driving a wrecking ball through it.
I visited "NT" Chatsworth House last week and as an experiment I decided to be you for a couple of hours as I went round. By which I mean I was on the lookout for our history being trashed. I didn't find much to get angry about (and I was you, remember).
If pushed, I can report that there was one example of what riles you (and me when I'm you) under a statue of a colonialist worthy, where it was clear the text had been altered to mention that in addition to his good works this guy had done his share of bad stuff.
"Thomas Tyrant III lived here from 1752 to 1775 and was responsible for the magnificent library extension. During his life of service to the Crown he endowed a great many things with a great many things. He was also no slouch when it came to exploiting and pillaging overseas. He could be a bit of a bastard like that, could Thomas Tyrant III"
Kind of like that. It read a bit oddly to me. Perhaps better to take him down.
Congratulations. You've taken the first step in a glorious journey in trying to be me.
I applaud it. I will be here for you, and your guide and mentor.
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Tobias Rustat.
However, Rustat’s involvement in the Royal African Company, which transported almost 150,000 slaves to the Americas, led the college to address his legacy by removing a portrait and renaming the “Rustat feast” previously held in his honour.
IIRC The RAC (not the rival to the AA) transported more slaves to America during the transAtlantic slave trade than any other company.
The head of Jesus College is a descendent of slaves. It would seem odd to make her sit through a feast named in honour of someone who profited from the murder and exploitation of her ancestors. Although I suspect her ancestry helps to explain some of the frothing on the topic in the right wing press. Nothing gets these people upset more than a woman of colour in a position of authority.
To be clear, you have no evidence but are keen to call people racists because you have a "suspiscion".
It's a pattern. Meghan Markle. Naomi Osaka. Which MP gets more hate mail than all others? (Diane Abbot). I doubt Jesus College is the only Oxbridge College doing this. But this is the one in the news. You have to ask yourself why. So yes, I do have a "suspiscion" or perhaps "suspicion" as I like to call it.
Fake News about Diane Abbot.
So who gets the most hate mail - as it wouldn't surprise me she gets the most...
The problem with Diane Abbot is that she has a long and glamorous history of saying utterly stupid things in public. This has (not entirely unsurprisingly) make her a sort of joke figure. It's nothing to do with skin colour or gender - to a lesser extent (because they are marginally less stupid in public) people like Richard Burgon or David Lammy get the same treatment - I still can't hear David Lammy speak without thinking of the mocking "Lammy Vision" video that someone produced after he called Boris "Literally Hitler"...
Abbott getting by far the most (and the most visceral and personal) abuse of any MP in the country has nothing to do with her being black and female? - C'mon.
She hasn't said more stupid stuff in public over the years than plenty of others. Boris Johnson springs to mind. He seems to be celebrated for it.
You're going to need to provide a citation for "Abbott getting by far the most abuse of any MP in the country", because it's out of line with all actual studies I am aware of. See also the various links on this subject already posted on this thread.
Jesus College wants to hide a plaque (and put it in a side room) of a guy who gave them 2000 quid in 1671 equivalent to 450k now to fund scholarships for orphaned children of Anglican clergy, because of his links to the slave trade.
Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.
Net net the guy probably created more orphans than he helped. At least now others facing a similar quandary about how to deal with these issues can ask "what would Jesus do?"
What's the extent of his connection?
If he had the readies to hand over £450k in today's money I am guessing it was more than tangential.
The slave trade was the only way to make money? Do you know who the donor was?
Tobias Rustat.
However, Rustat’s involvement in the Royal African Company, which transported almost 150,000 slaves to the Americas, led the college to address his legacy by removing a portrait and renaming the “Rustat feast” previously held in his honour.
IIRC The RAC (not the rival to the AA) transported more slaves to America during the transAtlantic slave trade than any other company.
The head of Jesus College is a descendent of slaves. It would seem odd to make her sit through a feast named in honour of someone who profited from the murder and exploitation of her ancestors. Although I suspect her ancestry helps to explain some of the frothing on the topic in the right wing press. Nothing gets these people upset more than a woman of colour in a position of authority.
It's not the job of a Head of House to seek to eradicate parts of a college's history that might happen to displease her - or, more likely, that other people are using to signal their virtue on her behalf in the event that, like most rational people, she doesn't harbour atavistic resentment from centuries past. She's the custodian of the college's heritage, not its sodding censor.
Interestingly, my reading of the evidence submitted to the Rhodes commission is that there's secretly a rather large cohort of academics at Oxford and Cambridge who abhor this sort of iconoclasm.
But, they keep very quiet about it and make their views only known in private.
Meanwhile the island is awash with tourists, yet the problems with progressing vaccinations among our under-40s, as discussed in a PB thread two weeks' back, are still unresolved, with many of our under-40s - the very people working in travel and hospitality - still unvaccinated, being told to wait, or that they have to travel to Portsmouth or Southampton for the Pfizer. That after nearly a month of under-40s being eligible, we still don't have a local Pfizer centre that is bookable through the national NHS website is a scandal.
To be honest I cannot think of a more lame excuse then they cannot travel for their vaccine, no matter they are on the Isle of Wight
Most anyone sensible would travel anywhere in the UK at this time to be vaccinated
Why not just have Pfizer there though? The local health people are letting under 40s down by not having one.
Yep. There is Pfizer - but it's out at GP practices having been used for the elderly, and the dribbling tail of second doses. These sites aren't bookable via the national (English) NHS system, whereas the main vaccination centre in the sports hall, where I had my AZN, is. They've clearly been caught on the hop by the effective withdrawal of the AZN from the under-40s, but after three weeks of faffing about the failure to deliver a solution is pitifully poor.
Those under-40s who, following advice like my own, are making a big fuss are being redirected to GP practices on a case-by-case basis. But there is no 'system' for the majority, and we still have 38 and 39-year olds kept "on hold" while Northern Ireland and SW London throws it open to all over-18s. Meanwhile we're awash with tourists.
If there is a third wave, put your money on it starting here....
THe Isle of Wight is at 79.3 / 62.6 (Of adults) so way ahead of both the England and UK averages for both doses.
As an aside, I had never even heard of Naomi Osaka before today. She's a tennis player. She said she was depressed and therefore decided not to do a press conference.
I am struggling to see a story here.
But Piers Morgan decided there was one. Apparently, she's a "brat" and a "madam", because she chose to skip questions from the press.
Now Piers is entitled to his opinions. But didn't Piers Morgan walk off a Good Morning Britain show when faced with questions he didn't like?
Naomi Osaka defeated Sabrina Williams last year IIRC. Her leaving the French Open is a HUGE blow for the event and the sport.
She's had some mental health issues, specifically difficulty dealing with being cross-examined about her ups & esp downs on the tennis court. There appears to have been a basic communications breakdown between her and French Open officials.
For which both share blame, but more goes on them methinks, because it sure seems she has a legitimate personal issue AND she's one of the more interesting & potentially great players on the court today? Or NOT on the court in this case.
I know we have the cult of the individual today and the mere mention of mental health means we must feel sorry for whoever claims it as an issue (despite how badly behaved they are) but the French open exists to play a tennis tournament. The prize money the players get (females now get as much as males and it is a lot) comes mainly from TV rights . So it stands to reason players have to engage with it. The French open needs to be about the tennis not her. Just wish the French Open would say that without having to take her issues into account.
I know nothing of this, but my understanding is that these tournaments should be about evaluating via series of competitive match ups who is the best tennis player.
If someone wishes only to play tennis, and not to appear at press conferences, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
Of course, if that is unacceptable to the competition organizer, then they are free to make appearance a condition of play, and players are free to find that either tolerable or intolerable.
My issue - such that it was - was more about Piers Morgan being a dickwad.
The problem is that the competition is professional, and the prize money is being paid for by the media.
Appearance at the press conferences is very much a condition of playing in the tournament, which Miss Osaka has now decided is unacceptable to her and withdrawn.
When you say "very much", is it a contractual requirement of playing, or something that is just assumed?
It is contractual. Players sign up to the rules. Article III.H of the Grand Slam rules requires players to attend a post-match media conference within 30 minutes of the end of the match unless they are injured and physically unable to appear or the tournament referee agrees otherwise. Non-appearance makes the player liable to a fine of up to $20k.
30 mins feels unnecessary, especially as some of the mens matches last five hours plus. Why not make it same day? That is probably easier on the players who have lost a long tough match without losing access for the journalists. They might even get better answers if they let the players get a bit refreshed.
You seem to be under the impression that the media want “better answers”. The conditions under which they are forced to perform are deliberate. The media want them to explode under pressure or emotion of the immediate aftermath. Or refuse to answer questions so that, yes, they can sell column inches describing their mental state. The one thing they absolutely DON’T want out of the press conferences is considered sensible answers to considered sensible questions.
And the level of emotion to be exploited in the aftermath of high intensity tennis matches is probably at least the equal of, if not greater than, any other high profile sport.
And in doing that, the media are probably delivering what a large chunk of the watching public want. I'm sure that includes me. Can anyone remember any football manager comment from 25 years ago other than Kevin Keegan's "Love it" rant?
Western Civilization really would be a good idea.
I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily delivering what the public want. They are delivering what will make the public pay any attention to press conferences. Which isn’t quite the same thing. Without the press conferences many of them would be out of a job. Or might actually have to pay greater attention to and write about the tennis matches themselves.
Many individual sports attract obsessive people with less than perfect social skills. Do we insist on excluding them because they prefer to play rather than talk?
I recall there was a professional golfer who admitted that he hated giving winner's speeches so much that he often aimed for second place. I played a bit of golf when young and will admit to the same.
When you are competing in front of a crowd that it isn't a social situation and is absolutely fine, because you are just concentrating on beating your opponent or playing your best shot and you are in your element.
I can totally sympathise with Miss Osaka. After all, she is very young, too.
What does it really add to the event having the media talk to someone who doesn't want to talk? If they are good enough to be paid well they'll have gone through media coaching and will just come out with the usual cr*p anyway.
Andy Murray was a great tennis player but fewer interviews would have been beneficial to his image. Like sausages, sometimes it is better not to see how things are made.
If she wants to talk in a quieter environment at a later time then fine.
Rubbish, she has a contract to fulfill, less whining and a bit more work would do her a power of good.
I agree there is a contract in this case and that in this situation she had to withdraw.
That wasn't really my point. Do the terms of the contract really benefit the sport?
I want to watch people who are great at tennis, not people being tortured in an interview.
Tiger Woods was pretty terrible at interviews but watch him on the course (I saw him win the Open at Hoylake with an absolute masterclass of control) and he was totally different. Nick Faldo was the same.
What do we want out of sport? Just a soap opera?
They have little issue with their own sites and milking the celebrity, for me she was just miffed she was not getting paid extra for it , I have little time for prima donna's, and not even a great one at that. It goes with the job and the millions , if she does not like it go and get a job elsewhere. No sympathy here whatsoever.
Good morning Malc
I have read your comments about Noami Osaka this morning and to be honest, they are wholly unacceptable and very hurtful to all those who are suffering serious, and in some cases grave, mental health issues
You are demonstrating a very disturbing attitude, which is quite common, against those in a mental heath crisis and is not at all helpful and does not reflect well on yourself
G, I don't need a lecture from you on mental health issues, I have several family members with problems. They are not spoilt millionaires happy to stuff their pockets with cash who don't want to have to utter a couple of words after a game. If she can go in front of a huge crowd every day she is fit to say a few words into a microphone. Go preach elsewhere.
PS: You will notice I am in no mood to take crap from anyone.
If you really do claim to understand mental health, you would not have made some of your comments today
This is nothing to do with millionaires, or those less fortunate, it is a young person who needs understanding, empathy, and counselling
And your own mood is not an excuse to criticise those who are ill, which mental health is very much an illness.
G you are talking absolute mince, she is a spoilt millionaire , perfectly able to go out in front of thousands every day without any problems but so selfish she does not want to say a few words to people who support her. Give it a rest. Prefers to do it on her own media to make even more money. PS: You a doctor now
No.
I have a very sick son who went to ground zero in Christchurch immediately after the 2011 earthquake and was present at the main collapsed building where 185 died and were recovered
I will not give defending mental health issues a rest
Of course, he's a Professor of Sociology at University of Manchester. This is why the centre-right is putting up such a ferocious resistance to these nihilistic morons.
They started the culture war; we will finish it.
I can certainly take his point to a degree, but I dont really understand one if his propositions, that Britain is particularly statue obsessed, as part of seeking to petrify history (nice pun).
National historical myths and statues of past figured dont seem particularly unique to Britain.
In seeking to building a better tomorrow, agonising over statues of historical figures is an utter irrelevancy - people suspect that anyone who really does so has another hidden agenda, which of course they do. All it does is polarise and divide people, and poisons the well.
We should focus on building on our history not driving a wrecking ball through it.
I visited "NT" Chatsworth House last week and as an experiment I decided to be you for a couple of hours as I went round. By which I mean I was on the lookout for our history being trashed. I didn't find much to get angry about (and I was you, remember).
If pushed, I can report that there was one example of what riles you (and me when I'm you) under a statue of a colonialist worthy, where it was clear the text had been altered to mention that in addition to his good works this guy had done his share of bad stuff.
"Thomas Tyrant III lived here from 1752 to 1775 and was responsible for the magnificent library extension. During his life of service to the Crown he endowed a great many things with a great many things. He was also no slouch when it came to exploiting and pillaging overseas. He could be a bit of a bastard like that, could Thomas Tyrant III"
Kind of like that. It read a bit oddly to me. Perhaps better to take him down.
Of course, he's a Professor of Sociology at University of Manchester. This is why the centre-right is putting up such a ferocious resistance to these nihilistic morons.
They started the culture war; we will finish it.
I can certainly take his point to a degree, but I dont really understand one if his propositions, that Britain is particularly statue obsessed, as part of seeking to petrify history (nice pun).
National historical myths and statues of past figured dont seem particularly unique to Britain.
In seeking to building a better tomorrow, agonising over statues of historical figures is an utter irrelevancy - people suspect that anyone who really does so has another hidden agenda, which of course they do. All it does is polarise and divide people, and poisons the well.
We should focus on building on our history not driving a wrecking ball through it.
I visited "NT" Chatsworth House last week and as an experiment I decided to be you for a couple of hours as I went round. By which I mean I was on the lookout for our history being trashed. I didn't find much to get angry about (and I was you, remember).
If pushed, I can report that there was one example of what riles you (and me when I'm you) under a statue of a colonialist worthy, where it was clear the text had been altered to mention that in addition to his good works this guy had done his share of bad stuff.
"Thomas Tyrant III lived here from 1752 to 1775 and was responsible for the magnificent library extension. During his life of service to the Crown he endowed a great many things with a great many things. He was also no slouch when it came to exploiting and pillaging overseas. He could be a bit of a bastard like that, could Thomas Tyrant III"
Kind of like that. It read a bit oddly to me. Perhaps better to take him down.
I thought chatsworth is owned by the family not the National Trust?
They've done some sort of deal. The NT are in there and so is the family.
I thought it was owned via a family trust?
Have they got the NT in to run things?
Admittedly it is a while since I last went there.
Yep, sorry, CORRECTION.
The CHATSWORTH Trust. Wife has also corrected me.
Apologies for misleading the whole community on this one.
Abbott getting by far the most (and the most visceral and personal) abuse of any MP in the country has nothing to do with her being black and female? - C'mon.
You're going to need to provide a citation for "Abbott getting by far the most abuse of any MP in the country", because it's out of line with all actual studies I am aware of. See also the various links on this subject already posted on this thread.
Nitpick away if you feel it rebuts my actual main point that a lot of the abuse she gets is driven by racism and misogyny.
Your point was that she gets "by far the most (and the most visceral and personal) abuse of any MP in the country", because online abuse is driven by racism and misogyny. If white men are getting the most abuse - indeed, you claim that "Boris Johnson... seems to be celebrated", but the data shows he receives far more abuse both proportionately and absolutely - then what does that do to your argument?
Comments
If pushed, I can report that there was one example of what riles you (and me when I'm you) under a statue of a colonialist worthy, where it was clear the text had been altered to mention that in addition to his good works this guy had done his share of bad stuff.
"Thomas Tyrant III lived here from 1752 to 1775 and was responsible for the magnificent library extension. During his life of service to the Crown he endowed a great many things with a great many things. He was also no slouch when it came to exploiting and pillaging overseas. He could be a bit of a bastard like that, could Thomas Tyrant III"
Kind of like that. It read a bit oddly to me. Perhaps better to take him down.
Boris fails to deliver jobs - someone else will win the seats.
You only have to look at Redcar post 2005 to see how things play out - deliver and you get the votes, fail to deliver and the voters will move on to the next party.
(Bruton to Yeovil hospital is a massive 16 miles...)
The black slaves could labour twice as long as white slaves before dropping dead. No brainier in terms of profit margin really.
I don’t want to come over all Keir Starmer, but there is a pattern of criminality developing here, isn’t there
It goes with the job and the millions , if she does not like it go and get a job elsewhere. No sympathy here whatsoever.
PMI at 65.6, having not broken 61.0 before. Definitely feels like we're going to be in for a bit of (hopefully short term) inflation this year.
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Joe/status/1399682552345075717?s=20
Of course the Delta variant is probably already in the EU - just with few exceptions (Denmark) they aren't doing enough testing or sequencing to find it....
Good enough reason for me.
I have read your comments about Noami Osaka this morning and to be honest, they are wholly unacceptable and very hurtful to all those who are suffering serious, and in some cases grave, mental health issues
You are demonstrating a very disturbing attitude, which is quite common, against those in a mental heath crisis and is not at all helpful and does not reflect well on yourself
Ramsden said the Bank would not be complacent about inflation. “If it is not temporary we know what to do about that. We can push bank rate up from its historically low level [0.1%] and we know what that will do to demand.”
Unsurprisingly, the bank's default position is to do nothing (i.e. 0.1% is the new normal).
It's the big known unknown. How would voters react to the BoE fighting inflation by raising interest rates? Would the government say "not our fault, blame those nasty economists"?
Or does that create offshoot problems for Govt’s borrowing?
And an academic team at Sheffield University under I think Professor Kalina Bontcheva, which is a larger sequence of studies running since about 2015, which had different results. One of the things they demonstrate is that abuse relates to which MPs are prominent, and to current issues, and how those change - eg at present Boris and SKS, Hancock and his Shadow are relatively prominent.
The Abbott narrative was created after the Cost of Police interview.
They published a paper in March this year about MP/public interactions during COVID.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349788202_MP_Twitter_Engagement_and_Abuse_Post-first_COVID-19_Lockdown_in_the_UK_White_Paper
These are the details for 2020 Q3 and 4. Blob size is amount of abusive tweets.
We are in a different era today. Some people want the morality of the past to confine us today, others want to judge those in the past with the morality of the present. Both are preposterous.
Roman attitudes towards slavery were interesting, shifted considerably over the course of several centuries, and varied enormously between individuals.
Romans, unlike Greeks or Southern plantation owners, never pretended to believe that some people were natural slaves, nor that it was a positive good (much of the Roman citizenry was made up of ex-slaves). Any Roman would have accepted that being a slave was a bad condition, but they viewed it as necessary, perhaps a necessary evil.
That said, during the worst period of Roman slavery, the last century of the Republic, many masters had no qualms at all at working their slaves to death, and replacing them with fresh stock, provided by Roman conquests. As the conquests dried up, in the Imperial period, attitudes towards slaves generally improved, and increasingly, they were seen as people in a state of unfreedom, as opposed to chattels.
At any point, though, there were people like Cicero who genuinely respected Tiro, on the one hand, and then monsters like Old Cato or Vedius Pollio, at the other end of the spectrum.
The very worst example of slavery in operation would probably be somewhere like Haiti in 1790, which reads like a vast concentration camp.
But that a mouthful so everyone* just called it the “New” College
* except for Merton who just had to be different
IIRC this is her first pregnancy and her pregnancy has been dealt with a London and the hospital is very close by for her, in an area she knows well.
You can understand why she’s not gone to Oporto or Somerset for a while.
The feeding frenzy that has been the housing market for the last year could look rather foolish if the BoE has no option but to hike rates.
Not Israel surely?
Must learn to read...
Romans, unlike Greeks or Southern plantation owners, never pretended to believe that some people were natural slaves, nor that it was a positive good (much of the Roman citizenry was made up of ex-slaves). Any Roman would have accepted that being a slave was a bad condition, but they viewed it as necessary, perhaps a necessary evil.
That said, during the worst period of Roman slavery, the last century of the Republic, many masters had no qualms at all at working their slaves to death, and replacing them with fresh stock, provided by Roman conquests. As the conquests dried up, in the Imperial period, attitudes towards slaves generally improved, and increasingly, they were seen as people in a state of unfreedom, as opposed to chattels.
At any point, though, there were people like Cicero who genuinely respected Tiro, on the one hand, and then monsters like Old Cato or Vedius Pollio, at the other end of the spectrum.
The very worst example of slavery in operation would probably be somewhere like Haiti in 1790, which reads like a vast concentration camp.
Probably the Roman mines at Rio Tinto were equally horrific. Mining in classical slavery was how they got rid of "troublesome" or "unwanted" slaves....
PS: You will notice I am in no mood to take crap from anyone.
She hasn't said more stupid stuff in public over the years than plenty of others. Boris Johnson springs to mind. He seems to be celebrated for it.
It's not like they can suddenly solve the housing supply issue as I hear a lot of building material prices have increased by 10% today due to demand exceeding supply.
Scotland 58.55% / 36.82%
Wales 66.83% / 34.70%
NI 54.47% / 34.37%
Johnson is one very lucky politician.
The the idea that people 200 years from now will be demanding the removal from public view, statues of Johnson and Hancock, cheers me immeasurably.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57315385
...
And there's no Thames in Oxford.
Laurium was probably no fun either. I am not convinced that the French w Indies were markedly worse than the Anglo Scottish.
This is nothing to do with millionaires, or those less fortunate, it is a young person who needs understanding, empathy, and counselling
And your own mood is not an excuse to criticise those who are ill, which mental health is very much an illness.
I am by no means a denialist, but the entire reason for the five week intervals was so we could see how expected rising cases fed in - or did not - to hospital occupancy.
If hospital occupancy remains flat, or even decreases, the case for any increase in restrictions is not made.
Cases ?
Hospitalisations ?
He is not even ahead in the polls a la mid term Ed Miliband at this point.
Prefers to do it on her own media to make even more money.
PS: You a doctor now
Yes - the ancient greeks were quite specific that life for a slave at Laurie was very nasty and very short.
He says we should have done more on Indian variant and earlier, but then pushed on it, there is never really well I would have totally closed the borders, stopped all outbound travel, instead it is nebulous more should have been done.
I don't recall Boris going on national radio to announce a policy of hiring thousands of coppers on £3k a year for instance - and actually I can't recall him ever having a car crash interview that bad.
Being a mine or quarry slave was a slow death sentence. Execution would be kinder. Next up was working in the fields as part of a chain gang. You'd last somewhat longer than a mine or quarry slave, but you were still worked to death, unless you had some special skill, or were lucky enough to become an overseer.
Household slaves certainly had it best. Many of them were skilled, and had a good chance of achieving freedom. Uniquely, the Romans gave citizenship to slaves freed by Roman citizens. Because masters only interacted with household slaves on a regular basis, they could probably put the rest of them out of mind.
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1399678383727034369?s=20
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1399678383727034369?s=20
Have they got the NT in to run things?
Admittedly it is a while since I last went there.
https://www.chatsworth.org/your-visit/faqs/
7. Is Chatsworth a National Trust or English Heritage property?
Chatsworth is not part of the National Trust or English Heritage, so standard admission prices apply. View our tickets and prices.
I applaud it. I will be here for you, and your guide and mentor.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/05/diane-abbott-more-abused-than-any-other-mps-during-election
Nitpick away if you feel it rebuts my actual main point that a lot of the abuse she gets is driven by racism and misogyny.
But I doubt it will.
But, they keep very quiet about it and make their views only known in private.
I have a very sick son who went to ground zero in Christchurch immediately after the 2011 earthquake and was present at the main collapsed building where 185 died and were recovered
I will not give defending mental health issues a rest
The CHATSWORTH Trust. Wife has also corrected me.
Apologies for misleading the whole community on this one.