Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
My eldest daughter thought it was completely true - so I gave her some hints and she is off reading real history now.
If you use real names etc, the "fictional" disclaimer should be in large type.
Pearl Harbor U-571 Braveheart
Anything by Philippa Gregory
What about Hilary Mantel? The way people banged on about it I'd assumed Wolf Hall would be a tremendous read, but found it rather dull and lacking in character compared to others in the genre, so perhaps too much accuracy was the problem?
I've enjoyed plenty of Conn Iggulden, but he doesn't even try for verisimilitude, and has now literally started writing fantasy fiction (really weirdly structured ones, too).
The Mantel trilogy is seriously overrated: implausible as well as dull. Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, on the other hand, is a thrilling mixture of history and fiction. It is a an epic treatment of the First World War that is also a profound exploration of masculinity and violence.
Can't agree with you on the Wolf Hall trilogy, it's unbelievably good in my opinion. Although she needed a tougher editor for the third book. Also love the Crown, a real guilty pleasure.
Quite agree with all of these points. Still really enjoyed the third book though.
So I see the government got its measures through by 291 to 78 - a majority of 213.
Boris sure is in trouble now
Indeed. He didn’t have to rely on the tacit support of the Opposition. Not at all. Completely normal for a man who won in a landslide less than a year ago.
Labour don't have 213 votes to be fair: he would still have won.
I don’t think that’s right is it? How many Labour MPs voted with the Government? There appear to have been 58 Tory rebels so if the other 20 non-Tories had not supported him over then his majority would have been only 173. I understand that one of the MPs voting with the Government was Jeremy Corbyn. So, to clarify, Johnson won with the tactic support of Starmer’s abstention and the actual support of the likes of Jeremy Corbyn voting with him.
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
I don't understand why the minister concerned has been criticised?
If it was Hancock saying it then I'd say "haven't you got better things to be dealing with"?
But the person who said it was ... Culture Secretary. Dealing with Cultural issues is literally his responsibility.
Culture Secretary speaks about biggest drama on TV shouldn't be shocking news.
That he spoke about it wasn't the issue, it's that I think what he said was dumb. You surely don't think that ministers should not be criticised for their comments relating to their departments.
2 TMexPm may have a note from Matron (who knows?), but there is something delicious about seeing her give her successor exactly as much support from the backbenches as he gave her... I think her revenge could definitely be a substantial enough meal to qualify for a drink.
And of course there’s nothing he can do about that until 2024 either...
I am as far from a classical scholar as you can get. I'm a physicist who went to a comprehensive in the late 1980s.
But my understanding is that a lot of classical literature boils down to: 1. Mortal has character flaw. 2. Gods come up with a punishment that exquisitely exploits said character flaw. 3. Punishment lasts forever.
Boris ought to be able to work out what's coming his way, shouldn't he?
Being permanently rogered by a priapic Old English Sheep Dog?
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
My eldest daughter thought it was completely true - so I gave her some hints and she is off reading real history now.
If you use real names etc, the "fictional" disclaimer should be in large type.
Pearl Harbor U-571 Braveheart
Anything by Philippa Gregory
What about Hilary Mantel? The way people banged on about it I'd assumed Wolf Hall would be a tremendous read, but found it rather dull and lacking in character compared to others in the genre, so perhaps too much accuracy was the problem?
I've enjoyed plenty of Conn Iggulden, but he doesn't even try for verisimilitude, and has now literally started writing fantasy fiction (really weirdly structured ones, too).
The Mantel trilogy is seriously overrated: implausible as well as dull. Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, on the other hand, is a thrilling mixture of history and fiction. It is a an epic treatment of the First World War that is also a profound exploration of masculinity and violence.
Can't agree with you on the Wolf Hall trilogy, it's unbelievably good in my opinion. Although she needed a tougher editor for the third book. Also love the Crown, a real guilty pleasure.
I just couldn't get into it. I got no real insight into the people, or feel for the period, it just felt like 'stuff happening'.
What I did like about the latest (and possibly last) Shardlake book was that C J Samson had a 70 page essay at the end going indepth on the historiography of the events that formed the basis of the plot, well beyond your typical 'This is how it really went down' author's note at the end. Certainly not something wanted or needed in most cases, but interesting.
Though I still think Cornwell put it best in one of his such notes, about how he made it up because 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'.
For all that something had to be passed tonight, and so allowing it to pass was the right thing to do...
1 The government can't keep its "the 2019 landslide means you can't touch us until 2024" act going after this- can they? (Seriously- allowing a vote on regulations five hours before they come into force is just a dick move).
2 TMexPm may have a note from Matron (who knows?), but there is something delicious about seeing her give her successor exactly as much support from the backbenches as he gave her... I think her revenge could definitely be a substantial enough meal to qualify for a drink.
1) No, they can't, but with vaccine rollout they probably are correct they can push past Covid rebellions for another 6-9 months, as Labour will probably abstain on many measures.
I don't think Boris cares except for rebellions on Brexit
2) Certainly hope so.
What does Boris want? I've read two or three of his biographies and two or three of his books, and rewatched When Boris Met Dave, Brexit (with Benedict Cumberbatch) and his lap of the Top Gear track, but I cannot pretend to understand the Prime Minister.
Boris uses people rather than likes them, and brooks no dissent as many purged MPs will testify, or disloyalty, as Dominic Cummings will, but his ruthless power plays do not seem to be in aid of any great cause. Sfaict, Boris's position on Brexit and the pandemic is he hopes someone will make them go away so we can all live happily ever after.
So I see the government got its measures through by 291 to 78 - a majority of 213.
Boris sure is in trouble now
Indeed. He didn’t have to rely on the tacit support of the Opposition. Not at all. Completely normal for a man who won in a landslide less than a year ago.
Labour don't have 213 votes to be fair: he would still have won.
I don’t think that’s right is it? How many Labour MPs voted with the Government? There appear to have been 58 Tory rebels so if the other 20 non-Tories had not supported him over then his majority would have been only 173. I understand that one of the MPs voting with the Government was Jeremy Corbyn. So, to clarify, Johnson won with the tactic support of Starmer’s abstention and the actual support of the likes of Jeremy Corbyn voting with him.
But as the majority was 213, if the Labour party had voted against he would still have won, surely? After all Jeremy is not a Labour MP.
2 TMexPm may have a note from Matron (who knows?), but there is something delicious about seeing her give her successor exactly as much support from the backbenches as he gave her... I think her revenge could definitely be a substantial enough meal to qualify for a drink.
And of course there’s nothing he can do about that until 2024 either...
I am as far from a classical scholar as you can get. I'm a physicist who went to a comprehensive in the late 1980s.
But my understanding is that a lot of classical literature boils down to: 1. Mortal has character flaw. 2. Gods come up with a punishment that exquisitely exploits said character flaw. 3. Punishment lasts forever.
Boris ought to be able to work out what's coming his way, shouldn't he?
Being permanently rogered by a priapic Old English Sheep Dog?
Maybe an infinite line of different priapic Old English Sheep Dogs? So as not to develop a relationship with any of them? "You can banish any of them whenever you like... there will always be another..."
For all that something had to be passed tonight, and so allowing it to pass was the right thing to do...
1 The government can't keep its "the 2019 landslide means you can't touch us until 2024" act going after this- can they? (Seriously- allowing a vote on regulations five hours before they come into force is just a dick move).
2 TMexPm may have a note from Matron (who knows?), but there is something delicious about seeing her give her successor exactly as much support from the backbenches as he gave her... I think her revenge could definitely be a substantial enough meal to qualify for a drink.
1) No, they can't, but with vaccine rollout they probably are correct they can push past Covid rebellions for another 6-9 months, as Labour will probably abstain on many measures.
I don't think Boris cares except for rebellions on Brexit
2) Certainly hope so.
What does Boris want? I've read two or three of his biographies and two or three of his books, and rewatched When Boris Met Dave, Brexit (with Benedict Cumberbatch) and his lap of the Top Gear track, but I cannot pretend to understand the Prime Minister.
Boris uses people rather than likes them, and brooks no dissent as many purged MPs will testify, or disloyalty, as Dominic Cummings will, but his ruthless power plays do not seem to be in aid of any great cause. Sfaict, Boris's position on Brexit and the pandemic is he hopes someone will make them go away so we can all live happily ever after.
He perpetually seeks psychological redemption from his damaged childhood.
For all that something had to be passed tonight, and so allowing it to pass was the right thing to do...
1 The government can't keep its "the 2019 landslide means you can't touch us until 2024" act going after this- can they? (Seriously- allowing a vote on regulations five hours before they come into force is just a dick move).
2 TMexPm may have a note from Matron (who knows?), but there is something delicious about seeing her give her successor exactly as much support from the backbenches as he gave her... I think her revenge could definitely be a substantial enough meal to qualify for a drink.
1) No, they can't, but with vaccine rollout they probably are correct they can push past Covid rebellions for another 6-9 months, as Labour will probably abstain on many measures.
I don't think Boris cares except for rebellions on Brexit
2) Certainly hope so.
What does Boris want? I've read two or three of his biographies and two or three of his books, and rewatched When Boris Met Dave, Brexit (with Benedict Cumberbatch) and his lap of the Top Gear track, but I cannot pretend to understand the Prime Minister.
Boris uses people rather than likes them, and brooks no dissent as many purged MPs will testify, or disloyalty, as Dominic Cummings will, but his ruthless power plays do not seem to be in aid of any great cause. Sfaict, Boris's position on Brexit and the pandemic is he hopes someone will make them go away so we can all live happily ever after.
He perpetually seeks psychological redemption from his damaged childhood.
Yes, I think the only way of understanding the mans actions are through the lens of his early life.
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
My eldest daughter thought it was completely true - so I gave her some hints and she is off reading real history now.
If you use real names etc, the "fictional" disclaimer should be in large type.
Pearl Harbor U-571 Braveheart
Anything by Philippa Gregory
What about Hilary Mantel? The way people banged on about it I'd assumed Wolf Hall would be a tremendous read, but found it rather dull and lacking in character compared to others in the genre, so perhaps too much accuracy was the problem?
I've enjoyed plenty of Conn Iggulden, but he doesn't even try for verisimilitude, and has now literally started writing fantasy fiction (really weirdly structured ones, too).
The Mantel trilogy is seriously overrated: implausible as well as dull. Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, on the other hand, is a thrilling mixture of history and fiction. It is a an epic treatment of the First World War that is also a profound exploration of masculinity and violence.
Can't agree with you on the Wolf Hall trilogy, it's unbelievably good in my opinion. Although she needed a tougher editor for the third book. Also love the Crown, a real guilty pleasure.
I just couldn't get into it. I got no real insight into the people, or feel for the period, it just felt like 'stuff happening'.
What I did like about the latest (and possibly last) Shardlake book was that C J Samson had a 70 page essay at the end going indepth on the historiography of the events that formed the basis of the plot, well beyond your typical 'This is how it really went down' author's note at the end. Certainly not something wanted or needed in most cases, but interesting.
Though I still think Cornwell put it best in one of his such notes, about how he made it up because 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'.
I tried to read Wolf Hall, and failed.
I may go back it, given how well regarded it is by *most* people whose opinions I hold in high regard.
So I see the government got its measures through by 291 to 78 - a majority of 213.
Boris sure is in trouble now
Indeed. He didn’t have to rely on the tacit support of the Opposition. Not at all. Completely normal for a man who won in a landslide less than a year ago.
Labour don't have 213 votes to be fair: he would still have won.
I don’t think that’s right is it? How many Labour MPs voted with the Government? There appear to have been 58 Tory rebels so if the other 20 non-Tories had not supported him over then his majority would have been only 173. I understand that one of the MPs voting with the Government was Jeremy Corbyn. So, to clarify, Johnson won with the tactic support of Starmer’s abstention and the actual support of the likes of Jeremy Corbyn voting with him.
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
I don't understand why the minister concerned has been criticised?
If it was Hancock saying it then I'd say "haven't you got better things to be dealing with"?
But the person who said it was ... Culture Secretary. Dealing with Cultural issues is literally his responsibility.
Culture Secretary speaks about biggest drama on TV shouldn't be shocking news.
That he spoke about it wasn't the issue, it's that I think what he said was dumb. You surely don't think that ministers should not be criticised for their comments relating to their departments.
Why was what he said dumb?
To disclaim that dramas involving depictions of real people include fictional events is standard in many dramas and legally required in many nations. I fail to see why what he said was dumb?
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
My eldest daughter thought it was completely true - so I gave her some hints and she is off reading real history now.
If you use real names etc, the "fictional" disclaimer should be in large type.
Pearl Harbor U-571 Braveheart
Anything by Philippa Gregory
What about Hilary Mantel? The way people banged on about it I'd assumed Wolf Hall would be a tremendous read, but found it rather dull and lacking in character compared to others in the genre, so perhaps too much accuracy was the problem?
I've enjoyed plenty of Conn Iggulden, but he doesn't even try for verisimilitude, and has now literally started writing fantasy fiction (really weirdly structured ones, too).
The Mantel trilogy is seriously overrated: implausible as well as dull. Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, on the other hand, is a thrilling mixture of history and fiction. It is a an epic treatment of the First World War that is also a profound exploration of masculinity and violence.
Can't agree with you on the Wolf Hall trilogy, it's unbelievably good in my opinion. Although she needed a tougher editor for the third book. Also love the Crown, a real guilty pleasure.
I just couldn't get into it. I got no real insight into the people, or feel for the period, it just felt like 'stuff happening'.
What I did like about the latest (and possibly last) Shardlake book was that C J Samson had a 70 page essay at the end going indepth on the historiography of the events that formed the basis of the plot, well beyond your typical 'This is how it really went down' author's note at the end. Certainly not something wanted or needed in most cases, but interesting.
Though I still think Cornwell put it best in one of his such notes, about how he made it up because 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'.
I tried to read Wolf Hall, and failed.
I may go back it, given how well regarded it is by *most* people whose opinions I hold in high regard.
imho the 2nd book is far better. I think in theory you can read them as standalone books.
So I see the government got its measures through by 291 to 78 - a majority of 213.
Boris sure is in trouble now
Indeed. He didn’t have to rely on the tacit support of the Opposition. Not at all. Completely normal for a man who won in a landslide less than a year ago.
Labour don't have 213 votes to be fair: he would still have won.
I don’t think that’s right is it? How many Labour MPs voted with the Government? There appear to have been 58 Tory rebels so if the other 20 non-Tories had not supported him over then his majority would have been only 173. I understand that one of the MPs voting with the Government was Jeremy Corbyn. So, to clarify, Johnson won with the tactic support of Starmer’s abstention and the actual support of the likes of Jeremy Corbyn voting with him.
And having a stonking big landslide majority.
All the talk about having an 80 seat majority forgets that as this is an England only regulation the SNP won't vote.
Plus of course Sinn Fein don't either.
That means the working majority is actually 135. Since there were not 68 rebels that wasn't enough to overcome the majority.
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
I don't understand why the minister concerned has been criticised?
If it was Hancock saying it then I'd say "haven't you got better things to be dealing with"?
But the person who said it was ... Culture Secretary. Dealing with Cultural issues is literally his responsibility.
Culture Secretary speaks about biggest drama on TV shouldn't be shocking news.
That he spoke about it wasn't the issue, it's that I think what he said was dumb. You surely don't think that ministers should not be criticised for their comments relating to their departments.
Why was what he said dumb?
To disclaim that dramas involving depictions of real people include fictional events is standard in many dramas and legally required in many nations. I fail to see why what he said was dumb?
I think it dumb because it treats the public as though they are dumb.
You don't have to agree, it's a matter of opinion, so to turn your question around, I don't understand why you have a problem with people having a problem with the view he expressed. You've already gone from objecting to people criticising him for making the comments to criticising people having an opinion on his comments, I don't know where you will jump to next.
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
I don't understand why the minister concerned has been criticised?
If it was Hancock saying it then I'd say "haven't you got better things to be dealing with"?
But the person who said it was ... Culture Secretary. Dealing with Cultural issues is literally his responsibility.
Culture Secretary speaks about biggest drama on TV shouldn't be shocking news.
That he spoke about it wasn't the issue, it's that I think what he said was dumb. You surely don't think that ministers should not be criticised for their comments relating to their departments.
Why was what he said dumb?
To disclaim that dramas involving depictions of real people include fictional events is standard in many dramas and legally required in many nations. I fail to see why what he said was dumb?
I think it dumb because it treats the public as though they are dumb.
You don't have to agree, it's a matter of opinion, so to turn your question around, I don't understand why you have a problem with people having a problem with the view he expressed.
There are people out there who think that Star Wars is a documentary: many if not most people will think that what they see in a programme like the Crown has to be true as "they wouldn't be allowed to say something that wasn't true".
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
I don't understand why the minister concerned has been criticised?
If it was Hancock saying it then I'd say "haven't you got better things to be dealing with"?
But the person who said it was ... Culture Secretary. Dealing with Cultural issues is literally his responsibility.
Culture Secretary speaks about biggest drama on TV shouldn't be shocking news.
That he spoke about it wasn't the issue, it's that I think what he said was dumb. You surely don't think that ministers should not be criticised for their comments relating to their departments.
Why was what he said dumb?
To disclaim that dramas involving depictions of real people include fictional events is standard in many dramas and legally required in many nations. I fail to see why what he said was dumb?
I think it dumb because it treats the public as though they are dumb.
You don't have to agree, it's a matter of opinion, so to turn your question around, I don't understand why you have a problem with people having a problem with the view he expressed. You've already gone from objecting to people criticising him for making the comments to criticising people having an opinion on his comments, I don't know where you will jump to next.
I never expressed an opinion on people having a problem though. I literally only asked why it was dumb. That is a question not criticism. What in my posts was criticism?
Saying that there should be disclaimers when involving real people is not a new idea, in fact studios have done a "all persons are fictitious" disclaimer since the 1930s. Doing so with people who aren't fictitious is surely eminently reasonable. And given that people have expressed concerns I don't see why the Culture Secretary weighing in is dumb?
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
I don't understand why the minister concerned has been criticised?
If it was Hancock saying it then I'd say "haven't you got better things to be dealing with"?
But the person who said it was ... Culture Secretary. Dealing with Cultural issues is literally his responsibility.
Culture Secretary speaks about biggest drama on TV shouldn't be shocking news.
That he spoke about it wasn't the issue, it's that I think what he said was dumb. You surely don't think that ministers should not be criticised for their comments relating to their departments.
Why was what he said dumb?
To disclaim that dramas involving depictions of real people include fictional events is standard in many dramas and legally required in many nations. I fail to see why what he said was dumb?
I think it dumb because it treats the public as though they are dumb.
You don't have to agree, it's a matter of opinion, so to turn your question around, I don't understand why you have a problem with people having a problem with the view he expressed. You've already gone from objecting to people criticising him for making the comments to criticising people having an opinion on his comments, I don't know where you will jump to next.
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
I don't think it is dreadful to have a disclaimer on the series apart from the fact that commercially I bet Netflix love the controversy of did it didn't it happen.
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
My eldest daughter thought it was completely true - so I gave her some hints and she is off reading real history now.
If you use real names etc, the "fictional" disclaimer should be in large type.
Pearl Harbor U-571 Braveheart
Anything by Philippa Gregory
What about Hilary Mantel? The way people banged on about it I'd assumed Wolf Hall would be a tremendous read, but found it rather dull and lacking in character compared to others in the genre, so perhaps too much accuracy was the problem?
I've enjoyed plenty of Conn Iggulden, but he doesn't even try for verisimilitude, and has now literally started writing fantasy fiction (really weirdly structured ones, too).
The Mantel trilogy is seriously overrated: implausible as well as dull. Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, on the other hand, is a thrilling mixture of history and fiction. It is a an epic treatment of the First World War that is also a profound exploration of masculinity and violence.
Can't agree with you on the Wolf Hall trilogy, it's unbelievably good in my opinion. Although she needed a tougher editor for the third book. Also love the Crown, a real guilty pleasure.
Quite agree with all of these points. Still really enjoyed the third book though.
Yes the third book was still very good. I bought it in hardback though and it was so bloody heavy. The second book is the best. Every word in it is a joy to read, even when you're crying.
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
The Pfizer vaccine not only likes it cold but also can only be safely moved 4 times so you can get it to a UK hospital but no further. So NHS staff will be first because Pfizer is first out of the blocks.
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
My eldest daughter thought it was completely true - so I gave her some hints and she is off reading real history now.
If you use real names etc, the "fictional" disclaimer should be in large type.
Pearl Harbor U-571 Braveheart
Anything by Philippa Gregory
What about Hilary Mantel? The way people banged on about it I'd assumed Wolf Hall would be a tremendous read, but found it rather dull and lacking in character compared to others in the genre, so perhaps too much accuracy was the problem?
I've enjoyed plenty of Conn Iggulden, but he doesn't even try for verisimilitude, and has now literally started writing fantasy fiction (really weirdly structured ones, too).
The Mantel trilogy is seriously overrated: implausible as well as dull. Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, on the other hand, is a thrilling mixture of history and fiction. It is a an epic treatment of the First World War that is also a profound exploration of masculinity and violence.
Can't agree with you on the Wolf Hall trilogy, it's unbelievably good in my opinion. Although she needed a tougher editor for the third book. Also love the Crown, a real guilty pleasure.
I just couldn't get into it. I got no real insight into the people, or feel for the period, it just felt like 'stuff happening'.
What I did like about the latest (and possibly last) Shardlake book was that C J Samson had a 70 page essay at the end going indepth on the historiography of the events that formed the basis of the plot, well beyond your typical 'This is how it really went down' author's note at the end. Certainly not something wanted or needed in most cases, but interesting.
Though I still think Cornwell put it best in one of his such notes, about how he made it up because 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'.
I tried to read Wolf Hall, and failed.
I may go back it, given how well regarded it is by *most* people whose opinions I hold in high regard.
I gave up on Wolf Hall after 150 pages. It's rare for me not to finish a book once I've started but I couldn't cope any more with the 'present in the past' and the peculiar use of personal pronouns. It was frustrating because I like historical novels, the period fascinates me and she is perfectly capable of writing decent prose. For some reason though she adopts these strange artificial mannerisms which distract from the story. I think her readership mistake the mannerism for 'Art'. Good luck to them.
I guess they also take her 'contrarian' view of history as original and thought provoking. I just find it as superficial and contrived as the stylistic mannerisms.
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
My eldest daughter thought it was completely true - so I gave her some hints and she is off reading real history now.
If you use real names etc, the "fictional" disclaimer should be in large type.
Pearl Harbor U-571 Braveheart
Anything by Philippa Gregory
What about Hilary Mantel? The way people banged on about it I'd assumed Wolf Hall would be a tremendous read, but found it rather dull and lacking in character compared to others in the genre, so perhaps too much accuracy was the problem?
I've enjoyed plenty of Conn Iggulden, but he doesn't even try for verisimilitude, and has now literally started writing fantasy fiction (really weirdly structured ones, too).
The Mantel trilogy is seriously overrated: implausible as well as dull. Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, on the other hand, is a thrilling mixture of history and fiction. It is a an epic treatment of the First World War that is also a profound exploration of masculinity and violence.
Can't agree with you on the Wolf Hall trilogy, it's unbelievably good in my opinion. Although she needed a tougher editor for the third book. Also love the Crown, a real guilty pleasure.
I just couldn't get into it. I got no real insight into the people, or feel for the period, it just felt like 'stuff happening'.
What I did like about the latest (and possibly last) Shardlake book was that C J Samson had a 70 page essay at the end going indepth on the historiography of the events that formed the basis of the plot, well beyond your typical 'This is how it really went down' author's note at the end. Certainly not something wanted or needed in most cases, but interesting.
Though I still think Cornwell put it best in one of his such notes, about how he made it up because 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'.
I tried to read Wolf Hall, and failed.
I may go back it, given how well regarded it is by *most* people whose opinions I hold in high regard.
I gave up on Wolf Hall after 150 pages. It's rare for me not to finish a book once I've started but I couldn't cope any more with the 'present in the past' and the peculiar use of personal pronouns. It was frustrating because I like historical novels, the period fascinates me and she is perfectly capable of writing decent prose. For some reason though she adopts these strange artificial mannerisms which distract from the story. I think her readership mistake the mannerism for 'Art'. Good luck to them.
I guess they also take her 'contrarian' view of history as original and thoguht provoking. I just find it as superficial and contrived as the stylistic mannerisms.
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
NHS are second.
(Care workers are first)
We have been notified to expect vaccination within a week or so. The logistics of the Pfizer vaccine means that NHS are first, then primary care and social care.
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
My eldest daughter thought it was completely true - so I gave her some hints and she is off reading real history now.
If you use real names etc, the "fictional" disclaimer should be in large type.
Pearl Harbor U-571 Braveheart
Anything by Philippa Gregory
What about Hilary Mantel? The way people banged on about it I'd assumed Wolf Hall would be a tremendous read, but found it rather dull and lacking in character compared to others in the genre, so perhaps too much accuracy was the problem?
I've enjoyed plenty of Conn Iggulden, but he doesn't even try for verisimilitude, and has now literally started writing fantasy fiction (really weirdly structured ones, too).
The Mantel trilogy is seriously overrated: implausible as well as dull. Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, on the other hand, is a thrilling mixture of history and fiction. It is a an epic treatment of the First World War that is also a profound exploration of masculinity and violence.
Can't agree with you on the Wolf Hall trilogy, it's unbelievably good in my opinion. Although she needed a tougher editor for the third book. Also love the Crown, a real guilty pleasure.
I just couldn't get into it. I got no real insight into the people, or feel for the period, it just felt like 'stuff happening'.
What I did like about the latest (and possibly last) Shardlake book was that C J Samson had a 70 page essay at the end going indepth on the historiography of the events that formed the basis of the plot, well beyond your typical 'This is how it really went down' author's note at the end. Certainly not something wanted or needed in most cases, but interesting.
Though I still think Cornwell put it best in one of his such notes, about how he made it up because 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'.
I tried to read Wolf Hall, and failed.
I may go back it, given how well regarded it is by *most* people whose opinions I hold in high regard.
I gave up on Wolf Hall after 150 pages. It's rare for me not to finish a book once I've started but I couldn't cope any more with the 'present in the past' and the peculiar use of personal pronouns. It was frustrating because I like historical novels, the period fascinates me and she is perfectly capable of writing decent prose. For some reason though she adopts these strange artificial mannerisms which distract from the story. I think her readership mistake the mannerism for 'Art'. Good luck to them.
I guess they also take her 'contrarian' view of history as original and thoguht provoking. I just find it as superficial and contrived as the stylistic mannerisms.
It's not for me.
Literature is like all art - it's personal whether you like it. Or not.
Nothing grates as much as some fool saying "You *must* like paintings by X".....
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
My eldest daughter thought it was completely true - so I gave her some hints and she is off reading real history now.
If you use real names etc, the "fictional" disclaimer should be in large type.
Pearl Harbor U-571 Braveheart
Anything by Philippa Gregory
What about Hilary Mantel? The way people banged on about it I'd assumed Wolf Hall would be a tremendous read, but found it rather dull and lacking in character compared to others in the genre, so perhaps too much accuracy was the problem?
I've enjoyed plenty of Conn Iggulden, but he doesn't even try for verisimilitude, and has now literally started writing fantasy fiction (really weirdly structured ones, too).
The Mantel trilogy is seriously overrated: implausible as well as dull. Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, on the other hand, is a thrilling mixture of history and fiction. It is a an epic treatment of the First World War that is also a profound exploration of masculinity and violence.
Can't agree with you on the Wolf Hall trilogy, it's unbelievably good in my opinion. Although she needed a tougher editor for the third book. Also love the Crown, a real guilty pleasure.
I just couldn't get into it. I got no real insight into the people, or feel for the period, it just felt like 'stuff happening'.
What I did like about the latest (and possibly last) Shardlake book was that C J Samson had a 70 page essay at the end going indepth on the historiography of the events that formed the basis of the plot, well beyond your typical 'This is how it really went down' author's note at the end. Certainly not something wanted or needed in most cases, but interesting.
Though I still think Cornwell put it best in one of his such notes, about how he made it up because 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'.
I tried to read Wolf Hall, and failed.
I may go back it, given how well regarded it is by *most* people whose opinions I hold in high regard.
I gave up on Wolf Hall after 150 pages. It's rare for me not to finish a book once I've started but I couldn't cope any more with the 'present in the past' and the peculiar use of personal pronouns. It was frustrating because I like historical novels, the period fascinates me and she is perfectly capable of writing decent prose. For some reason though she adopts these strange artificial mannerisms which distract from the story. I think her readership mistake the mannerism for 'Art'. Good luck to them.
I guess they also take her 'contrarian' view of history as original and thoguht provoking. I just find it as superficial and contrived as the stylistic mannerisms.
It's not for me.
I'm glad you mentioned the personal pronoun thing, that was weird. Not as bad as the lack of speech marks in Normal People, and I don't think it impacted my opinion of the book, but it was noticable. But she must be doing something right, people love it.
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
NHS are second.
(Care workers are first)
We have been notified to expect vaccination within a week or so. The logistics of the Pfizer vaccine means that NHS are first, then primary care and social care.
Oh and on Mantel, No 3 is waiting there as a Christmas treat. The first two were fantastic.
Same with The Testaments (waiting for Christmas).
I thought that meant you weren't satisfied with the old and new testaments and we were expecting another soon, which would be quite the shake up for a lot of churches.
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
And then a massive roll out for the most vulnerable before Christmas so that they have had at least their first dose and get the second very early in the new year.
NHS workers first I hope (and I say that a someone classed as "extremely vulnerable"). And then teachers...
NHS are second.
(Care workers are first)
We have been notified to expect vaccination within a week or so. The logistics of the Pfizer vaccine means that NHS are first, then primary care and social care.
It also makes sense from a public health point of view, reducing the spread in hospitals by inoculating the people who interact with patients will help keep staff capacity up through the winter. Glad to hear you'll get vaccinated soon Foxy!
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
My eldest daughter thought it was completely true - so I gave her some hints and she is off reading real history now.
If you use real names etc, the "fictional" disclaimer should be in large type.
Pearl Harbor U-571 Braveheart
Anything by Philippa Gregory
What about Hilary Mantel? The way people banged on about it I'd assumed Wolf Hall would be a tremendous read, but found it rather dull and lacking in character compared to others in the genre, so perhaps too much accuracy was the problem?
I've enjoyed plenty of Conn Iggulden, but he doesn't even try for verisimilitude, and has now literally started writing fantasy fiction (really weirdly structured ones, too).
The Mantel trilogy is seriously overrated: implausible as well as dull. Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, on the other hand, is a thrilling mixture of history and fiction. It is a an epic treatment of the First World War that is also a profound exploration of masculinity and violence.
Can't agree with you on the Wolf Hall trilogy, it's unbelievably good in my opinion. Although she needed a tougher editor for the third book. Also love the Crown, a real guilty pleasure.
I just couldn't get into it. I got no real insight into the people, or feel for the period, it just felt like 'stuff happening'.
What I did like about the latest (and possibly last) Shardlake book was that C J Samson had a 70 page essay at the end going indepth on the historiography of the events that formed the basis of the plot, well beyond your typical 'This is how it really went down' author's note at the end. Certainly not something wanted or needed in most cases, but interesting.
Though I still think Cornwell put it best in one of his such notes, about how he made it up because 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'.
I tried to read Wolf Hall, and failed.
I may go back it, given how well regarded it is by *most* people whose opinions I hold in high regard.
I gave up on Wolf Hall after 150 pages. It's rare for me not to finish a book once I've started but I couldn't cope any more with the 'present in the past' and the peculiar use of personal pronouns. It was frustrating because I like historical novels, the period fascinates me and she is perfectly capable of writing decent prose. For some reason though she adopts these strange artificial mannerisms which distract from the story. I think her readership mistake the mannerism for 'Art'. Good luck to them.
I guess they also take her 'contrarian' view of history as original and thought provoking. I just find it as superficial and contrived as the stylistic mannerisms.
It's not for me.
Very long books aren't my cup of tea. About 300 pages is okay.
Oh and on Mantel, No 3 is waiting there as a Christmas treat. The first two were fantastic.
Same with The Testaments (waiting for Christmas).
I thought that meant you weren't satisfied with the old and new testaments and we were expecting another soon, which would be quite the shake up for a lot of churches.
Two have caused quite enough problems without a third.
FPT Hyufd said: 'Given Glasgow has not had a Tory MP since 1979 and we have had 28 years of Tory government since and it voted Yes to independence even in 2014 when Scotland overall voted No, politically I am little bothered what Glasgow thinks and would of course never canvass there '
I have to correct you there. Glasgow Hillhead was Tory -held until it fell to Roy Jenkins at the March 1982 by-election.
Oh and on Mantel, No 3 is waiting there as a Christmas treat. The first two were fantastic.
Same with The Testaments (waiting for Christmas).
I thought that meant you weren't satisfied with the old and new testaments and we were expecting another soon, which would be quite the shake up for a lot of churches.
Well its about time. I mean we have waited longer for that than the last volume of GoT and that's just ridiculous.
Oh and on Mantel, No 3 is waiting there as a Christmas treat. The first two were fantastic.
Same with The Testaments (waiting for Christmas).
I thought that meant you weren't satisfied with the old and new testaments and we were expecting another soon, which would be quite the shake up for a lot of churches.
Isn’t that what the Book of Mormon is supposed to be?
Oh and on Mantel, No 3 is waiting there as a Christmas treat. The first two were fantastic.
Same with The Testaments (waiting for Christmas).
I thought that meant you weren't satisfied with the old and new testaments and we were expecting another soon, which would be quite the shake up for a lot of churches.
Actually, I think I'm just describing the Book of Mormon?
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
My eldest daughter thought it was completely true - so I gave her some hints and she is off reading real history now.
If you use real names etc, the "fictional" disclaimer should be in large type.
Pearl Harbor U-571 Braveheart
Anything by Philippa Gregory
What about Hilary Mantel? The way people banged on about it I'd assumed Wolf Hall would be a tremendous read, but found it rather dull and lacking in character compared to others in the genre, so perhaps too much accuracy was the problem?
I've enjoyed plenty of Conn Iggulden, but he doesn't even try for verisimilitude, and has now literally started writing fantasy fiction (really weirdly structured ones, too).
The Mantel trilogy is seriously overrated: implausible as well as dull. Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, on the other hand, is a thrilling mixture of history and fiction. It is a an epic treatment of the First World War that is also a profound exploration of masculinity and violence.
Can't agree with you on the Wolf Hall trilogy, it's unbelievably good in my opinion. Although she needed a tougher editor for the third book. Also love the Crown, a real guilty pleasure.
I just couldn't get into it. I got no real insight into the people, or feel for the period, it just felt like 'stuff happening'.
What I did like about the latest (and possibly last) Shardlake book was that C J Samson had a 70 page essay at the end going indepth on the historiography of the events that formed the basis of the plot, well beyond your typical 'This is how it really went down' author's note at the end. Certainly not something wanted or needed in most cases, but interesting.
Though I still think Cornwell put it best in one of his such notes, about how he made it up because 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'.
I tried to read Wolf Hall, and failed.
I may go back it, given how well regarded it is by *most* people whose opinions I hold in high regard.
I gave up on Wolf Hall after 150 pages. It's rare for me not to finish a book once I've started but I couldn't cope any more with the 'present in the past' and the peculiar use of personal pronouns. It was frustrating because I like historical novels, the period fascinates me and she is perfectly capable of writing decent prose. For some reason though she adopts these strange artificial mannerisms which distract from the story. I think her readership mistake the mannerism for 'Art'. Good luck to them.
I guess they also take her 'contrarian' view of history as original and thought provoking. I just find it as superficial and contrived as the stylistic mannerisms.
Oh and on Mantel, No 3 is waiting there as a Christmas treat. The first two were fantastic.
Same with The Testaments (waiting for Christmas).
I thought that meant you weren't satisfied with the old and new testaments and we were expecting another soon, which would be quite the shake up for a lot of churches.
Isn’t that what the Book of Mormon is supposed to be?
Oh and on Mantel, No 3 is waiting there as a Christmas treat. The first two were fantastic.
Same with The Testaments (waiting for Christmas).
I thought that meant you weren't satisfied with the old and new testaments and we were expecting another soon, which would be quite the shake up for a lot of churches.
Actually, I think I'm just describing the Book of Mormon?
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
My eldest daughter thought it was completely true - so I gave her some hints and she is off reading real history now.
If you use real names etc, the "fictional" disclaimer should be in large type.
Pearl Harbor U-571 Braveheart
Anything by Philippa Gregory
What about Hilary Mantel? The way people banged on about it I'd assumed Wolf Hall would be a tremendous read, but found it rather dull and lacking in character compared to others in the genre, so perhaps too much accuracy was the problem?
I've enjoyed plenty of Conn Iggulden, but he doesn't even try for verisimilitude, and has now literally started writing fantasy fiction (really weirdly structured ones, too).
The Mantel trilogy is seriously overrated: implausible as well as dull. Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, on the other hand, is a thrilling mixture of history and fiction. It is a an epic treatment of the First World War that is also a profound exploration of masculinity and violence.
Can't agree with you on the Wolf Hall trilogy, it's unbelievably good in my opinion. Although she needed a tougher editor for the third book. Also love the Crown, a real guilty pleasure.
I just couldn't get into it. I got no real insight into the people, or feel for the period, it just felt like 'stuff happening'.
What I did like about the latest (and possibly last) Shardlake book was that C J Samson had a 70 page essay at the end going indepth on the historiography of the events that formed the basis of the plot, well beyond your typical 'This is how it really went down' author's note at the end. Certainly not something wanted or needed in most cases, but interesting.
Though I still think Cornwell put it best in one of his such notes, about how he made it up because 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'.
I tried to read Wolf Hall, and failed.
I may go back it, given how well regarded it is by *most* people whose opinions I hold in high regard.
I gave up on Wolf Hall after 150 pages. It's rare for me not to finish a book once I've started but I couldn't cope any more with the 'present in the past' and the peculiar use of personal pronouns. It was frustrating because I like historical novels, the period fascinates me and she is perfectly capable of writing decent prose. For some reason though she adopts these strange artificial mannerisms which distract from the story. I think her readership mistake the mannerism for 'Art'. Good luck to them.
I guess they also take her 'contrarian' view of history as original and thoguht provoking. I just find it as superficial and contrived as the stylistic mannerisms.
It's not for me.
I'm glad you mentioned the personal pronoun thing, that was weird. Not as bad as the lack of speech marks in Normal People, and I don't think it impacted my opinion of the book, but it was noticable. But she must be doing something right, people love it.
It's also a great story - worth retelling if only as a warning to each rising generation of special advisers. There's even an apocryphal Shakespearean version (The history of Thomas Lord Cromwel) in the much-maligned Fourth Folio.
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
My eldest daughter thought it was completely true - so I gave her some hints and she is off reading real history now.
If you use real names etc, the "fictional" disclaimer should be in large type.
Pearl Harbor U-571 Braveheart
Anything by Philippa Gregory
What about Hilary Mantel? The way people banged on about it I'd assumed Wolf Hall would be a tremendous read, but found it rather dull and lacking in character compared to others in the genre, so perhaps too much accuracy was the problem?
I've enjoyed plenty of Conn Iggulden, but he doesn't even try for verisimilitude, and has now literally started writing fantasy fiction (really weirdly structured ones, too).
The Mantel trilogy is seriously overrated: implausible as well as dull. Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, on the other hand, is a thrilling mixture of history and fiction. It is a an epic treatment of the First World War that is also a profound exploration of masculinity and violence.
Can't agree with you on the Wolf Hall trilogy, it's unbelievably good in my opinion. Although she needed a tougher editor for the third book. Also love the Crown, a real guilty pleasure.
I just couldn't get into it. I got no real insight into the people, or feel for the period, it just felt like 'stuff happening'.
What I did like about the latest (and possibly last) Shardlake book was that C J Samson had a 70 page essay at the end going indepth on the historiography of the events that formed the basis of the plot, well beyond your typical 'This is how it really went down' author's note at the end. Certainly not something wanted or needed in most cases, but interesting.
Though I still think Cornwell put it best in one of his such notes, about how he made it up because 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'.
I tried to read Wolf Hall, and failed.
I may go back it, given how well regarded it is by *most* people whose opinions I hold in high regard.
I gave up on Wolf Hall after 150 pages. It's rare for me not to finish a book once I've started but I couldn't cope any more with the 'present in the past' and the peculiar use of personal pronouns. It was frustrating because I like historical novels, the period fascinates me and she is perfectly capable of writing decent prose. For some reason though she adopts these strange artificial mannerisms which distract from the story. I think her readership mistake the mannerism for 'Art'. Good luck to them.
I guess they also take her 'contrarian' view of history as original and thought provoking. I just find it as superficial and contrived as the stylistic mannerisms.
It's not for me.
I was the same. It was just annoying.
Are you saying that she, Mantel, wrote something you didn't like?
Oh gods, this means that idiot minister is more in tune with the public than me.
Though I suppose there's a difference between perhaps they should, versus the idea it should be required.
My eldest daughter thought it was completely true - so I gave her some hints and she is off reading real history now.
If you use real names etc, the "fictional" disclaimer should be in large type.
Pearl Harbor U-571 Braveheart
Anything by Philippa Gregory
What about Hilary Mantel? The way people banged on about it I'd assumed Wolf Hall would be a tremendous read, but found it rather dull and lacking in character compared to others in the genre, so perhaps too much accuracy was the problem?
I've enjoyed plenty of Conn Iggulden, but he doesn't even try for verisimilitude, and has now literally started writing fantasy fiction (really weirdly structured ones, too).
The Mantel trilogy is seriously overrated: implausible as well as dull. Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, on the other hand, is a thrilling mixture of history and fiction. It is a an epic treatment of the First World War that is also a profound exploration of masculinity and violence.
Can't agree with you on the Wolf Hall trilogy, it's unbelievably good in my opinion. Although she needed a tougher editor for the third book. Also love the Crown, a real guilty pleasure.
I just couldn't get into it. I got no real insight into the people, or feel for the period, it just felt like 'stuff happening'.
What I did like about the latest (and possibly last) Shardlake book was that C J Samson had a 70 page essay at the end going indepth on the historiography of the events that formed the basis of the plot, well beyond your typical 'This is how it really went down' author's note at the end. Certainly not something wanted or needed in most cases, but interesting.
Though I still think Cornwell put it best in one of his such notes, about how he made it up because 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'.
I tried to read Wolf Hall, and failed.
I may go back it, given how well regarded it is by *most* people whose opinions I hold in high regard.
I gave up on Wolf Hall after 150 pages. It's rare for me not to finish a book once I've started but I couldn't cope any more with the 'present in the past' and the peculiar use of personal pronouns. It was frustrating because I like historical novels, the period fascinates me and she is perfectly capable of writing decent prose. For some reason though she adopts these strange artificial mannerisms which distract from the story. I think her readership mistake the mannerism for 'Art'. Good luck to them.
I guess they also take her 'contrarian' view of history as original and thoguht provoking. I just find it as superficial and contrived as the stylistic mannerisms.
It's not for me.
Literature is like all art - it's personal whether you like it. Or not.
Nothing grates as much as some fool saying "You *must* like paintings by X".....
Nope, anyone who doesn't like Velasquez* can be consigned to the circle of hell reserved for Farage's tailor and every atom of Trump.
*There are others but I'm trying not to be tedious.
Comments
HOUSE !
https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/916#noes
What I did like about the latest (and possibly last) Shardlake book was that C J Samson had a 70 page essay at the end going indepth on the historiography of the events that formed the basis of the plot, well beyond your typical 'This is how it really went down' author's note at the end. Certainly not something wanted or needed in most cases, but interesting.
Though I still think Cornwell put it best in one of his such notes, about how he made it up because 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'.
Boris uses people rather than likes them, and brooks no dissent as many purged MPs will testify, or disloyalty, as Dominic Cummings will, but his ruthless power plays do not seem to be in aid of any great cause. Sfaict, Boris's position on Brexit and the pandemic is he hopes someone will make them go away so we can all live happily ever after.
"You can banish any of them whenever you like... there will always be another..."
This classics stuff is easy, isn't it?
#TeamNatSci
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE1flg_qqiE
A film star, apparently.
I may go back it, given how well regarded it is by *most* people whose opinions I hold in high regard.
To disclaim that dramas involving depictions of real people include fictional events is standard in many dramas and legally required in many nations. I fail to see why what he said was dumb?
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1333885782101286912
https://twitter.com/natashaloder/status/1333873342705770497
All the talk about having an 80 seat majority forgets that as this is an England only regulation the SNP won't vote.
Plus of course Sinn Fein don't either.
That means the working majority is actually 135. Since there were not 68 rebels that wasn't enough to overcome the majority.
Eating food that goes against all laws of man, God, and nature is how we got into this mess.
You don't have to agree, it's a matter of opinion, so to turn your question around, I don't understand why you have a problem with people having a problem with the view he expressed. You've already gone from objecting to people criticising him for making the comments to criticising people having an opinion on his comments, I don't know where you will jump to next.
Saying that there should be disclaimers when involving real people is not a new idea, in fact studios have done a "all persons are fictitious" disclaimer since the 1930s. Doing so with people who aren't fictitious is surely eminently reasonable. And given that people have expressed concerns I don't see why the Culture Secretary weighing in is dumb?
Surely this is fraud by Sidney Powell?
Surely she is setting herself up to be disbarred?
And then teachers...
(Care workers are first)
(For clarity, it didn't.)
Biden 80,914k, Trump 74,070k
Biden 51.3%, Trump 46.9%
Same with The Testaments (waiting for Christmas).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/27/hospitals-england-told-prepare-early-december-covid-vaccine-rollout-nhs
The Pfizer vaccine not only likes it cold but also can only be safely moved 4 times so you can get it to a UK hospital but no further. So NHS staff will be first because Pfizer is first out of the blocks.
I guess they also take her 'contrarian' view of history as original and thought provoking. I just find it as superficial and contrived as the stylistic mannerisms.
It's not for me.
Just asking.
Nothing grates as much as some fool saying "You *must* like paintings by X".....
Hyufd said:
'Given Glasgow has not had a Tory MP since 1979 and we have had 28 years of Tory government since and it voted Yes to independence even in 2014 when Scotland overall voted No, politically I am little bothered what Glasgow thinks and would of course never canvass there '
I have to correct you there. Glasgow Hillhead was Tory -held until it fell to Roy Jenkins at the March 1982 by-election.
Well people are showering less during lockdown.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/01/chris-krebs-trump-campaign-441724
*There are others but I'm trying not to be tedious.
https://twitter.com/natashaloder/status/1333901257300389893?s=20