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.
It's all a bit Palmerstonian here.
(The French Ambassador, trying to curry favour, once told Palmerston, 'Had I not been French, I would have wished to be English.' Palmerston fired back, 'Well, had I been French, I would also wish to be English.' The joke being of course that Palmerston was in fact Irish...)
Downing Street refuses to rule out a climate-friendly 'meat tax' on foreign steaks and burgers, as floated by George Eustice at the weekend. Tells reporters that any former of 'carbon border tax' would have to be agreed internationally https://twitter.com/DavidTWilcock/status/1399698278711693316
I've always disliked those post-match interviews, particularly with the losing competitor. Good to see Naomi Osaka refusing to go along with it.
Except she's not refusing to do it because she dislikes it (though no doubt that's true) at least not officially. She's saying it is negatively impacts her mental health. So her getting a dispensation, if she achieves that, wont affect others as its improbable theyd all suffer such problems.
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.
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.
I'd say that pointing out untrue narratives is not nitpicking, even if it is tangential to your 'main point'.
It's about time for this one to join the "debunked" category.
I'll withdraw the comment if you can show me some evidence that DA is the most racially abused online MP. I don't that Amnesty even researched that, and I think that the claim was one fabricated (perhaps by an unconscious jerk of the knee) in a Guardian article.
I suspect that at the moment it is one of Lammy, Patel and Butler.
"Oxfordshire to ban smoking outdoors in time for lockdown ending as it gets set to become the first 'smoke-free' county in England
Oxfordshire plans to be the first county in England to go smoke-free by 2025 County will crack down on outdoor dining areas and workplace break spots Aim is to change smoking culture and prevent diseases linked to tobacco"
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.
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.
I don't think the abuse she receives can be entirely disassociated from racism or sexism, given the nature of some of it. But that link is pretty old and the contention was that it is not necessarily a universal truth that she receives the most abuse.
If that is so, then that for a time she recieved the most does not automatically apply at other times.
"Oxfordshire to ban smoking outdoors in time for lockdown ending as it gets set to become the first 'smoke-free' county in England
Oxfordshire plans to be the first county in England to go smoke-free by 2025 County will crack down on outdoor dining areas and workplace break spots Aim is to change smoking culture and prevent diseases linked to tobacco"
"Oxfordshire to ban smoking outdoors in time for lockdown ending as it gets set to become the first 'smoke-free' county in England
Oxfordshire plans to be the first county in England to go smoke-free by 2025 County will crack down on outdoor dining areas and workplace break spots Aim is to change smoking culture and prevent diseases linked to tobacco"
As to what metrics should be used to make the decisions on when to further relax restrictions in England and how far (or, to the contrary, but in my current view, highly unlikely - when and by how much to increase restrictions), there are two output metrics.
All else is inputs, and we don't really know the (ever-changing) function by which the inputs translate to outputs, because vaccination has changed this. All the modelling is estimations and projections based on assumptions by which this has changed.
Cases? Comes through via multiple filters: the proportion of infections picked up (which depends on positivity and targeting) and then the proportion of cases that become hospital admissions - and then the duration of hospital stays.
Vaccinations? Comes through by inference on how this is changing both case numbers and hospital admissions and duration of hospital stays.
Even hospital admissions - it depends on how long they stay prior to discharge (and the anecdotal evidence of patients being less sick and discharged sooner seems borne out in the way that the increase in admissions over the past 8-10 days has not fed through to an increase in numbers hospitalised or on ventilation.
While there can be a case for following deaths, the drastic reduction in CFR we've seen makes that case far weaker.
Hospital occupancy and ventilation. I fully accept that we can't absorb anywhere near the numbers we reached before (33,000+ in England alone) as the crowded out healthcare that was needed elsewhere needs to be caught up upon, but there's a long scope between the existing 743 and those extreme numbers.
If the numbers start accelerating upwards rapidly, then that could be cause for alarm. If they tick up slowly, less so. If they remain flat, then no cause for alarm. Especially as the daily-increasing vaccination numbers remorselessly increase the downwards pressure on these metrics.
"Oxfordshire to ban smoking outdoors in time for lockdown ending as it gets set to become the first 'smoke-free' county in England
Oxfordshire plans to be the first county in England to go smoke-free by 2025 County will crack down on outdoor dining areas and workplace break spots Aim is to change smoking culture and prevent diseases linked to tobacco"
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.
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.
The abuse directed at her amounted to 10 times as much as was received by any other female MP, according to the Amnesty study.
Only considering less than a third of the total sample? That's more than a nitpick, I think. And as posted previously, there is evidence that male MPs get more abuse than female MPs, in general.
Also - lol - you can't use a study of only female MPs to conclude in part that misogyny is the driver of who finishes top!
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.
That certainly puts a different light on it.
In what way? People are triggered by different things. She can play tennis (and it appears to other stuff), but can't do press conferences. Seems easy enough to understand.
"Oxfordshire to ban smoking outdoors in time for lockdown ending as it gets set to become the first 'smoke-free' county in England
Oxfordshire plans to be the first county in England to go smoke-free by 2025 County will crack down on outdoor dining areas and workplace break spots Aim is to change smoking culture and prevent diseases linked to tobacco"
Downing Street refuses to rule out a climate-friendly 'meat tax' on foreign steaks and burgers, as floated by George Eustice at the weekend. Tells reporters that any former of 'carbon border tax' would have to be agreed internationally https://twitter.com/DavidTWilcock/status/1399698278711693316
"Downing Street refuses to rule out" is a pretty weak hook for a story.
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
Too right too. That said, it really is best not to engage with Malcolmg except to take the piss out of him. He is an angry little Nat who spews vitriol all day long. The fact that he has no sympathy for a person with mental health issues should be of no surprise. He does have sympathy, and indeed, undying loyalty, for a man that was described by his own QC as a bully and sex pest. You can judge a person by the company they keep or perhaps, the people they most admire
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.
So you are saying
in Third Wave thanks to vaccination there will be very few deaths in UK?
Or that running at xx daily deaths for a while is okay with you chaps as the price for your freedom from restriction - remember that is loved ones of people hearing your response you are piling up there.
Or that when it hits xxx daily deaths even you want some restrictions back, recognising you are late again at this point?
Basically are you making clear, if you were in government yourself, your first option like Boris would always be the lazy to have cake and eat it wherever possible, that is how you would govern?
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.
So you are saying
in Third Wave thanks to vaccination there will be very few deaths in UK?
Or that running at xx daily deaths for a while is okay with you chaps as the price for your freedom from restriction - remember that is loved ones of people hearing your response you are piling up there.
Or that when it hits xxx daily deaths even you want some restrictions back, recognising you are late again at this point?
Basically are you making clear, if you were in government yourself, your first option like Boris would always be the lazy to have cake and eat it wherever possible, that is how you would govern?
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.
That certainly puts a different light on it.
In what way? People are triggered by different things. She can play tennis (and it appears to other stuff), but can't do press conferences. Seems easy enough to understand.
It depends on whether she has done press conferences or at least talked to the press in support of her various protests: if she has then that makes it harder to suggest she can't do the same after a game.
To be honest I think I'm going to stop putting my oar in on this one: the story seems a lot more complicated than I first assumed and I have not been following it anything like close enough to say anything worth while one way or another without just projecting what I would do in the same circumstances (i.e. run away as fast as I could from any contact with the press).
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.
So you are saying
in Third Wave thanks to vaccination there will be very few deaths in UK?
Or that running at xx daily deaths for a while is okay with you chaps as the price for your freedom from restriction - remember that is loved ones of people hearing your response you are piling up there.
Or that when it hits xxx daily deaths even you want some restrictions back, recognising you are late again at this point?
Basically are you making clear, if you were in government yourself, your first option like Boris would always be the lazy to have cake and eat it wherever possible, that is how you would govern?
We already accept xx daily deaths from all sorts of causes as the price of freedom. We even accept a maximum price for treatment of individuals. What is different about Covid?
We had to lock down when it became clear we couldn't cope otherwise. There's absolutely no sign of that here.
If it came from the lab, any virologist doing ‘gain of function’ research should be put on trial, with a death penalty at the end.
This cannot stand. They may have killed millions.
I don’t think people grasp the scale of anger that awaits the boffins, and the people that funded them. They were warned: don’t do it
Once this so all over, this virus will have killed more than the Holocaust did. A sobering thought, especially so if it was caused by human negligence or malice.
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.....
Well said. Besides the hyperbolic and tasteless aspect, it was also said by a man who supports Alex Salmond, not just in a small way, but with undying love and devotion. Not really in any position to rant on about the morality of other politicians, when the person you most admire is described as a bully and sex pest
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.
That certainly puts a different light on it.
In what way? People are triggered by different things. She can play tennis (and it appears to other stuff), but can't do press conferences. Seems easy enough to understand.
It depends on whether she has done press conferences or at least talked to the press in support of her various protests: if she has then that makes it harder to suggest she can't do the same after a game.
To be honest I think I'm going to stop putting my oar in on this one: the story seems a lot more complicated than I first assumed and I have not been following it anything like close enough to say anything worth while one way or another without just projecting what I would do in the same circumstances (i.e. run away as fast as I could from any contact with the press).
I don’t know what’s so complicated about wanting to be a tennis player and not wanting to give press conferences.
She’s won 3 grand slams in the last couple of years, I’d say she’s earned her right to choose. If that means her appearance is lower then fine, but this public spat about mental health that has led to her dropping out the tournament is hilariously bad management by the tennis authorities. I suspect that the organisers of Wimbledon and the US Open will not be so foolish.
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.
So you are saying
in Third Wave thanks to vaccination there will be very few deaths in UK?
Or that running at xx daily deaths for a while is okay with you chaps as the price for your freedom from restriction - remember that is loved ones of people hearing your response you are piling up there.
Or that when it hits xxx daily deaths even you want some restrictions back, recognising you are late again at this point?
Basically are you making clear, if you were in government yourself, your first option like Boris would always be the lazy to have cake and eat it wherever possible, that is how you would govern?
It is called balancing risks - x people die of COVID. But a number of people are dying from the effects of lockdown. The NHS waiting lists mean that a non-trivial number of people will die, who could have been saved by prompter medical intervention, for example.
Zero COVID is the option for those who don't give a shit about other kinds of deaths.
If it came from the lab, any virologist doing ‘gain of function’ research should be put on trial, with a death penalty at the end.
This cannot stand. They may have killed millions.
I don’t think people grasp the scale of anger that awaits the boffins, and the people that funded them. They were warned: don’t do it
Once this so all over, this virus will have killed more than the Holocaust did. A sobering thought, especially so if it was caused by human negligence or malice.
Gain of function is from the same stable of euphemism as final solution, come to think of 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
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.
That certainly puts a different light on it.
In what way? People are triggered by different things. She can play tennis (and it appears to other stuff), but can't do press conferences. Seems easy enough to understand.
It depends on whether she has done press conferences or at least talked to the press in support of her various protests: if she has then that makes it harder to suggest she can't do the same after a game.
To be honest I think I'm going to stop putting my oar in on this one: the story seems a lot more complicated than I first assumed and I have not been following it anything like close enough to say anything worth while one way or another without just projecting what I would do in the same circumstances (i.e. run away as fast as I could from any contact with the press).
I don’t know what’s so complicated about wanting to be a tennis player and not wanting to give press conferences.
She’s won 3 grand slams in the last couple of years, I’d say she’s earned her right to choose. If that means her appearance is lower then fine, but this public spat about mental health that has led to her dropping out the tournament is hilariously bad management by the tennis authorities. I suspect that the organisers of Wimbledon and the US Open will not be so foolish.
Indeed, they’ll make it very clear to all the players that missing the press conference is grounds for immediate expulsion from their tournament.
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.
So you are saying
in Third Wave thanks to vaccination there will be very few deaths in UK?
Or that running at xx daily deaths for a while is okay with you chaps as the price for your freedom from restriction - remember that is loved ones of people hearing your response you are piling up there.
Or that when it hits xxx daily deaths even you want some restrictions back, recognising you are late again at this point?
Basically are you making clear, if you were in government yourself, your first option like Boris would always be the lazy to have cake and eat it wherever possible, that is how you would govern?
We already accept xx daily deaths from all sorts of causes as the price of freedom. We even accept a maximum price for treatment of individuals. What is different about Covid?
We had to lock down when it became clear we couldn't cope otherwise. There's absolutely no sign of that here.
True. To give a simple example, we could take a leaf out of Mussolini's book and simply lock up anyone who vaguely looks like they might be in a gang. He kicked the shit out of the Mafia and the Camorra with such tactics. Lock up a few thousand people without trial - knife and gun crime would collapse - the postcode war bollocks would be gone.
Why don't we do that - it would save dozens of lives?
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.....
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
Just slightly different from a spoiled millionaire tennis player having a tantrum about having to do an interview if she wants the millions she signed a contract stating she would! How do you manage to conflate those two points.
"Oxfordshire to ban smoking outdoors in time for lockdown ending as it gets set to become the first 'smoke-free' county in England
Oxfordshire plans to be the first county in England to go smoke-free by 2025 County will crack down on outdoor dining areas and workplace break spots Aim is to change smoking culture and prevent diseases linked to tobacco"
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.
Down to the age profile of the population, no doubt. And probably why politicians aren’t kicking up the fuss you’d expect about the problems the under-40s are running up against.
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.
So you are saying
in Third Wave thanks to vaccination there will be very few deaths in UK?
Or that running at xx daily deaths for a while is okay with you chaps as the price for your freedom from restriction - remember that is loved ones of people hearing your response you are piling up there.
Or that when it hits xxx daily deaths even you want some restrictions back, recognising you are late again at this point?
Basically are you making clear, if you were in government yourself, your first option like Boris would always be the lazy to have cake and eat it wherever possible, that is how you would govern?
I believe there will be very few deaths yes. That was the point of protecting the vulnerable - which we have pretty much done as well as possible with the current vaccines.
I don't want anyone to die of covid, but there are other issues too. A friend is attending a funeral in a weeks time of a family member who committed suicide. Not a direct death due to covid, but related (mental health). People's business run the risk of ruination, and that has consequences.
If I were in government I hope I would listen to advice (and I am a scientist) and weigh that against all interests. The current 5 week interval has been well thought out and explained. I think we have been over cautious this time, but I get why.
"Oxfordshire to ban smoking outdoors in time for lockdown ending as it gets set to become the first 'smoke-free' county in England
Oxfordshire plans to be the first county in England to go smoke-free by 2025 County will crack down on outdoor dining areas and workplace break spots Aim is to change smoking culture and prevent diseases linked to tobacco"
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.
So you are saying
in Third Wave thanks to vaccination there will be very few deaths in UK?
Or that running at xx daily deaths for a while is okay with you chaps as the price for your freedom from restriction - remember that is loved ones of people hearing your response you are piling up there.
Or that when it hits xxx daily deaths even you want some restrictions back, recognising you are late again at this point?
Basically are you making clear, if you were in government yourself, your first option like Boris would always be the lazy to have cake and eat it wherever possible, that is how you would govern?
I believe there will be very few deaths yes. That was the point of protecting the vulnerable - which we have pretty much done as well as possible with the current vaccines.
I don't want anyone to die of covid, but there are other issues too. A friend is attending a funeral in a weeks time of a family member who committed suicide. Not a direct death due to covid, but related (mental health). People's business run the risk of ruination, and that has consequences.
If I were in government I hope I would listen to advice (and I am a scientist) and weigh that against all interests. The current 5 week interval has been well thought out and explained. I think we have been over cautious this time, but I get why.
I do feel for the Government. We could have the ultimate fantasy front bench of pure statesmen from all parties in the Cabinet, but when this sort of decision is announced to this set of reporters, any and all nuances or caveats are lost. It’s impossible to be grown up.
"Oxfordshire to ban smoking outdoors in time for lockdown ending as it gets set to become the first 'smoke-free' county in England
Oxfordshire plans to be the first county in England to go smoke-free by 2025 County will crack down on outdoor dining areas and workplace break spots Aim is to change smoking culture and prevent diseases linked to tobacco"
While no doubt favouring the legalising of cannabis!
I used to be all in favour of legalising and taxing cannabis, basically on the grounds that it is not that harmful and doing so would cut off funding to organised crime and terrorism. Then I visited a few countries that had done so, and I hate the smell so much it changed my mind. Maybe this is the solution.
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.
Malc, your mood is ALWAYS crap. In case you haven't noticed, we have.
I had a lovely long weekend with friends and the other half.
It was wonderful, have to say if the government changes the roadmap date of June 21st I suspect not many people will follow it.
Unless Covid-19 mutates into a flesh eating variant then lockdown is dead and never coming back.
Isn't the problem more that 21 June is things that you have no choice about following? If businesses are forced to maintain social distancing and keep the rule of 6 at risk of being shut down or large events are banned then there isn't much customers can do about it.
In my own life, the biggest impact other than the rule of 6 is social distancing on martial arts training. Sure we could ignore it, but then (I understand) the instructor's insurance would be invalidated and that would put him and anyone who gets injured in a very uncomfortable position.
Exactly. Businesses will be forced to continue operating at half capacity but without furlough. Customers will break lockdown - thus increasing the risk - but businesses will not benefit. It's lose-lose.
Comments
(The French Ambassador, trying to curry favour, once told Palmerston, 'Had I not been French, I would have wished to be English.'
Palmerston fired back, 'Well, had I been French, I would also wish to be English.'
The joke being of course that Palmerston was in fact Irish...)
https://twitter.com/DavidTWilcock/status/1399698278711693316
It's about time for this one to join the "debunked" category.
I'll withdraw the comment if you can show me some evidence that DA is the most racially abused online MP. I don't that Amnesty even researched that, and I think that the claim was one fabricated (perhaps by an unconscious jerk of the knee) in a Guardian article.
I suspect that at the moment it is one of Lammy, Patel and Butler.
Oxfordshire plans to be the first county in England to go smoke-free by 2025
County will crack down on outdoor dining areas and workplace break spots
Aim is to change smoking culture and prevent diseases linked to tobacco"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9639417/Oxfordshire-smoke-free-county-England.html
If that is so, then that for a time she recieved the most does not automatically apply at other times.
Note British! Eustice appeared to be freelancing (again?) with suggestion of tariffs by the back door
But this idea won’t die
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1399699321449295874
Um.. To quit smoking or to quit their jobs?
All else is inputs, and we don't really know the (ever-changing) function by which the inputs translate to outputs, because vaccination has changed this. All the modelling is estimations and projections based on assumptions by which this has changed.
Cases? Comes through via multiple filters: the proportion of infections picked up (which depends on positivity and targeting) and then the proportion of cases that become hospital admissions - and then the duration of hospital stays.
Vaccinations? Comes through by inference on how this is changing both case numbers and hospital admissions and duration of hospital stays.
Even hospital admissions - it depends on how long they stay prior to discharge (and the anecdotal evidence of patients being less sick and discharged sooner seems borne out in the way that the increase in admissions over the past 8-10 days has not fed through to an increase in numbers hospitalised or on ventilation.
While there can be a case for following deaths, the drastic reduction in CFR we've seen makes that case far weaker.
Hospital occupancy and ventilation. I fully accept that we can't absorb anywhere near the numbers we reached before (33,000+ in England alone) as the crowded out healthcare that was needed elsewhere needs to be caught up upon, but there's a long scope between the existing 743 and those extreme numbers.
If the numbers start accelerating upwards rapidly, then that could be cause for alarm. If they tick up slowly, less so. If they remain flat, then no cause for alarm. Especially as the daily-increasing vaccination numbers remorselessly increase the downwards pressure on these metrics.
In March PM on the record says Sun readers will not be hit by meat tax: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14200866/meat-prices-wont-rise-tax-hikes-green-agenda/
‘But asked specifically if there would be future meat or carbon taxes on consumers on his watch, Mr Johnson said: “no.”’
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1399700208678846467
But today that line has dramatically softened and no10 won’t say it’s off the table. Oh dear.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-turned-nonvoters-into-voters-in-2020-will-they-turn-out-for-next-years-midterms-11622545202?mod=hp_lead_pos6
Only considering less than a third of the total sample? That's more than a nitpick, I think. And as posted previously, there is evidence that male MPs get more abuse than female MPs, in general.
Also - lol - you can't use a study of only female MPs to conclude in part that misogyny is the driver of who finishes top!
in Third Wave thanks to vaccination there will be very few deaths in UK?
Or that running at xx daily deaths for a while is okay with you chaps as the price for your freedom from restriction - remember that is loved ones of people hearing your response you are piling up there.
Or that when it hits xxx daily deaths even you want some restrictions back, recognising you are late again at this point?
Basically are you making clear, if you were in government yourself, your first option like Boris would always be the lazy to have cake and eat it wherever possible, that is how you would govern?
This cannot stand. They may have killed millions.
I don’t think people grasp the scale of anger that awaits the boffins, and the people that funded them. They were warned: don’t do it
To be honest I think I'm going to stop putting my oar in on this one: the story seems a lot more complicated than I first assumed and I have not been following it anything like close enough to say anything worth while one way or another without just projecting what I would do in the same circumstances (i.e. run away as fast as I could from any contact with the press).
We had to lock down when it became clear we couldn't cope otherwise. There's absolutely no sign of that here.
Nothing to stop me eating meat or our farmers selling it to me. Not great if you’re New Zealand though.
She’s won 3 grand slams in the last couple of years, I’d say she’s earned her right to choose. If that means her appearance is lower then fine, but this public spat about mental health that has led to her dropping out the tournament is hilariously bad management by the tennis authorities. I suspect that the organisers of Wimbledon and the US Open will not be so foolish.
Zero COVID is the option for those who don't give a shit about other kinds of deaths.
Why don't we do that - it would save dozens of lives?
How do you manage to conflate those two points.
I don't want anyone to die of covid, but there are other issues too. A friend is attending a funeral in a weeks time of a family member who committed suicide. Not a direct death due to covid, but related (mental health). People's business run the risk of ruination, and that has consequences.
If I were in government I hope I would listen to advice (and I am a scientist) and weigh that against all interests.
The current 5 week interval has been well thought out and explained. I think we have been over cautious this time, but I get why.
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/05/world/worldometer-coronavirus-mystery/