From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
Didn't he hunt animals ?
yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
Hunted animals for fun.
Something rarely described as progressive.
Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
Indeed
So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
Yep
My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.
She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.
She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
No
Too young
Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.
She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.
Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
He killed sentient animals for fun.
You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.
Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
Presumably it is only the self righteous who are horrified by this article and the progressives will justify these kinds of actions ?
From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
Didn't he hunt animals ?
yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
Hunted animals for fun.
Something rarely described as progressive.
Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
Indeed
So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
Yep
My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.
She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.
She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
No
Too young
Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.
She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.
Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
He killed sentient animals for fun.
You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.
Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
Presumably it is only the self righteous who are horrified by this article and the progressives will justify these kinds of actions ?
I'm not keen on hunting, shooting and fishing and have never done them. But doing that to someone's pet is something quite different, I would say.
It' treating animals as if they don't matter, they don't feel pain and suffering, they don't have emotions.
Its the same mentality.
Perhaps, but I think it's more about the humans. I get that anti-hunting people might feel pain for a pheasant or whatever. But I feel pain for the humans who loved that specific cat.
From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
Didn't he hunt animals ?
yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
Hunted animals for fun.
Something rarely described as progressive.
Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
Indeed
So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
Yep
My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.
She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.
She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
No
Too young
Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.
She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.
Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
He killed sentient animals for fun.
You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.
Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
Presumably it is only the self righteous who are horrified by this article and the progressives will justify these kinds of actions ?
I'm not keen on hunting, shooting and fishing and have never done them. But doing that to someone's pet is something quite different, I would say.
It' treating animals as if they don't matter, they don't feel pain and suffering, they don't have emotions.
Its the same mentality.
Perhaps, but I think it's more about the humans. I get that anti-hunting people might feel pain for a pheasant or whatever. But I feel pain for the humans who loved that specific cat.
I would be horrified if that MEN article was about a stray cat that was not a family cat.
I think some seem to be saying it would be ok if it was a stray to treat a cat in such a way.
From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
Didn't he hunt animals ?
yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
Hunted animals for fun.
Something rarely described as progressive.
Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
Indeed
So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
Yep
My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.
She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.
She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
No
Too young
Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.
She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.
Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
He killed sentient animals for fun.
You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.
Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
Presumably it is only the self righteous who are horrified by this article and the progressives will justify these kinds of actions ?
From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
Didn't he hunt animals ?
yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
Hunted animals for fun.
Something rarely described as progressive.
Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
Indeed
So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
Yep
My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.
She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.
She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
No
Too young
Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.
She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.
Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
He killed sentient animals for fun.
You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.
Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
Presumably it is only the self righteous who are horrified by this article and the progressives will justify these kinds of actions ?
I'm not keen on hunting, shooting and fishing and have never done them. But doing that to someone's pet is something quite different, I would say.
It' treating animals as if they don't matter, they don't feel pain and suffering, they don't have emotions.
Its the same mentality.
Perhaps, but I think it's more about the humans. I get that anti-hunting people might feel pain for a pheasant or whatever. But I feel pain for the humans who loved that specific cat.
I would be horrified if that MEN article was about a stray cat that was not a family cat.
I think some seem to be saying it would be ok if it was a stray to treat a cat in such a way.
I like cats, so I wouldn't be happy about someone doing it to any cat, but I think most normal people would know that there's a good chance that a cat belongs to someone.
From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
Didn't he hunt animals ?
yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
Hunted animals for fun.
Something rarely described as progressive.
Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
Indeed
So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
Yep
My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.
She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.
She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
No
Too young
Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.
She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.
Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
He killed sentient animals for fun.
You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.
Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
Presumably it is only the self righteous who are horrified by this article and the progressives will justify these kinds of actions ?
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
I flicked through the news channels on Sky yesterday mid-afternoon
Only the UK/Europe focused ones, such as France 24 (English), Euro News were leading with it.
The other Asian, Middle East and African channels were leading with local stories, RT was talking about the AZ vaccine.
The suggestion was it would be for the world when the Queen dies. How much coverage other places will have will vary, but it's a good bet when she does a lot of those channels will make a bigger deal of it than when her husband passed away.
The only bigger story would be if Greta Thunberg died.
I think people in the West tend to overestimate its global cultural importance. Lee Kwan Yew and King Bumibol dying were huge news in Asia but I doubt most here even knew who they were. I lost count of the number of sober minded grownups sobbing at those two.
Sure, Betty Windsor is going to make the newspapers everywhere. But most people don’t read newspapers. It wouldn’t feature on wechat for too long. Bit like Brexit, I struggle to recall anyone in East Asia really talking about it much. They were a bit preoccupied with whether Kim was going to turn their cities to glass.
As for Greta, I’d forgotten all about her until you mentioned her name. Has she grown up and discovered what makes all the stuff?
The thing is because of her longevity and prominence the Queen is essentially one of the most recognizable people on the planet. It's not a question of being culturally important to people in, say, Laos, it's that it will be a really really big story in enough places that even where it is not as big a story, they will hear about it. Bumibol was big locally, but it is simply the case that the British Monarchy has a bigger global profile, not least because the Americans obsess about it so much, and that will filter out.
See Kurt’s comment. Hardly anyone in half the world cares what the Americans are doing, much less the Brits. Sure, a truck driver in rural Laos may see it flash up on the tv news when he pops up to the shop to get some red bull. But he’ll shrug and go about his day. David Beckham on the other hand...
And in India I suspect the passing of David “Lovely Jubbly” Jason would illicit more genuine grief than the Queen among tuk tuk drivers.
Actually, in India, where they're most common and where many of them are still manufactured, they're known as auto-rickshaws (or "autos" for short), not as "tuk-tuks". At a stretch, also as "three-wheelers".
From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
Didn't he hunt animals ?
yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
Hunted animals for fun.
Something rarely described as progressive.
Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
Indeed
So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
Yep
My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.
She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.
She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
No
Too young
Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.
She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.
Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
He killed sentient animals for fun.
You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.
Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
Presumably it is only the self righteous who are horrified by this article and the progressives will justify these kinds of actions ?
Just read that stark New Yorker article about China, Uighurs and state surveillance by technology. It is 1984, but more sophisticated and sinister, and it is here
There are even echoes of Nazism. This bit struck me:
"In some cases, officials pursued an odd tactic [against Uighur buildings]: miniaturization. In 2018, the grand gatehouse of a mosque in the town of Kargilik was covered with a banner proclaiming, “Love the Party, love the country.” Then the structure was dismantled and rebuilt as an ersatz version of itself, at a quarter the size."
This is racist mockery as a state policy. The Nazis did something like this to Jews in occupied countries, they took Jewish tombstones and turned them into paving stones, so Jews had to walk and drive over them. They used other tombstones to build walls around the ghetto in Krakow
China is a dystopian autocracy, marrying elements of the Khmer Rouge and Nazism, with the economic and technological power of the USA. Terrifying.
The ratio of an individual or organisation's criticism of Israeli treatment of Palestinians compared to their criticism of Chinese treatment of Uighers is probably a good measure of their antisemitism.
Yes. Very possibly. A sky high ratio being the tell.
And what would the dead opposite signify iyo?
Hostility to China.
Which, especially given the last year, has rather more sense to it than hostility to Israel.
But what about the extreme of banging on incessantly about Chinese oppression of the Uighers whilst emitting not a squeak about Israeli oppression of the Palestinians.
From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
Didn't he hunt animals ?
yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
Hunted animals for fun.
Something rarely described as progressive.
Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
Indeed
So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
Yep
My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.
She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.
She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
No
Too young
Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.
She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.
Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
He killed sentient animals for fun.
You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.
Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
Presumably it is only the self righteous who are horrified by this article and the progressives will justify these kinds of actions ?
I'm not keen on hunting, shooting and fishing and have never done them. But doing that to someone's pet is something quite different, I would say.
It' treating animals as if they don't matter, they don't feel pain and suffering, they don't have emotions.
Its the same mentality.
Perhaps, but I think it's more about the humans. I get that anti-hunting people might feel pain for a pheasant or whatever. But I feel pain for the humans who loved that specific cat.
I would be horrified if that MEN article was about a stray cat that was not a family cat.
I think some seem to be saying it would be ok if it was a stray to treat a cat in such a way.
If you had rodents entering your house what would you do about it?
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
I flicked through the news channels on Sky yesterday mid-afternoon
Only the UK/Europe focused ones, such as France 24 (English), Euro News were leading with it.
The other Asian, Middle East and African channels were leading with local stories, RT was talking about the AZ vaccine.
The suggestion was it would be for the world when the Queen dies. How much coverage other places will have will vary, but it's a good bet when she does a lot of those channels will make a bigger deal of it than when her husband passed away.
The only bigger story would be if Greta Thunberg died.
I think people in the West tend to overestimate its global cultural importance. Lee Kwan Yew and King Bumibol dying were huge news in Asia but I doubt most here even knew who they were. I lost count of the number of sober minded grownups sobbing at those two.
Sure, Betty Windsor is going to make the newspapers everywhere. But most people don’t read newspapers. It wouldn’t feature on wechat for too long. Bit like Brexit, I struggle to recall anyone in East Asia really talking about it much. They were a bit preoccupied with whether Kim was going to turn their cities to glass.
As for Greta, I’d forgotten all about her until you mentioned her name. Has she grown up and discovered what makes all the stuff?
The thing is because of her longevity and prominence the Queen is essentially one of the most recognizable people on the planet. It's not a question of being culturally important to people in, say, Laos, it's that it will be a really really big story in enough places that even where it is not as big a story, they will hear about it. Bumibol was big locally, but it is simply the case that the British Monarchy has a bigger global profile, not least because the Americans obsess about it so much, and that will filter out.
See Kurt’s comment. Hardly anyone in half the world cares what the Americans are doing, much less the Brits. Sure, a truck driver in rural Laos may see it flash up on the tv news when he pops up to the shop to get some red bull. But he’ll shrug and go about his day. David Beckham on the other hand...
And in India I suspect the passing of David “Lovely Jubbly” Jason would illicit more genuine grief than the Queen among tuk tuk drivers.
Actually, in India, where they're most common and where many of them are still manufactured, they're known as auto-rickshaws (or "autos" for short), not as "tuk-tuks". At a stretch, also as "three-wheelers".
From watching films of Philip, it's obvious he was an incredibly modern and forward-thinking person when he first joined the royal family.
I don’t think his most vehement critics quite get that for a nonegenarian, he was pretty progressive.
Didn't he hunt animals ?
yes and ate beef, fish and chicken.
Hunted animals for fun.
Something rarely described as progressive.
Depends on your definition of progressive, middle class wankers insisting everyone should think as they do isnt progress.
Indeed
So the idea to claim he was progressive in the first place was probably a mistake to claim wasn't it ?
Not at all. Progress depends where you start from. The 1920s had a different set of priorities.
Yep
My now deceased grandmother was born and educated in Nazi Germany.
She was able to progress and understand that sentient animals are able to suffer physical and emotional pain and acted accordingly.
She progressed in her mind despite what the 20's and 30's threw at her.
The progressive Nazi party were also big on animal welfare in 1930s Germany. was she in the Bund deurscher Maedl by any chance ?
No
Too young
Although her father was a brown shirt and popular within the Nazi party and brother died aged 18 or 19 at the siege of Stalingrad, having been shot in the knee he froze to death.
She moved to England in 1946 unable to speak any English and was able to learn about the world through a very different lens to that she was brought up to look through, one that in the 40's realised that whilst she was an omnivore she wanted as little suffering as possible for all humans and all animals given the horrors she had witnessed in Germany,
so a bit lie Prince Philip then an immigrant from a German family who called Blighty home
other than my grandmother learnt from the horrors of war that treating other humans and sentient animals was a humane thing to do.
Phil seemed to skip the idea that treating every creature as kindly as possible even after what he went through was a good idea. Not progressive.
Really ? There have been a lot of people on TV saying he was down to earth, approachable and kind.
He killed sentient animals for fun.
You need to know no more to know how much he cared or thought about others.
That says nothing at all. Hunting is a past time right across the globe from Putin to Mandela people do it.
Yep, but rarely are those people described as progressive.
Killing of sentient animals may happen across the world, the progressives oppose it and don't indulge.
Nah most progrerssives wave wide moral nostrums about the place and then are as conflicted as the rest of us in the choices they have to make. The only difference is the rest of us dont wallow in self righteousness
Just read that stark New Yorker article about China, Uighurs and state surveillance by technology. It is 1984, but more sophisticated and sinister, and it is here
There are even echoes of Nazism. This bit struck me:
"In some cases, officials pursued an odd tactic [against Uighur buildings]: miniaturization. In 2018, the grand gatehouse of a mosque in the town of Kargilik was covered with a banner proclaiming, “Love the Party, love the country.” Then the structure was dismantled and rebuilt as an ersatz version of itself, at a quarter the size."
This is racist mockery as a state policy. The Nazis did something like this to Jews in occupied countries, they took Jewish tombstones and turned them into paving stones, so Jews had to walk and drive over them. They used other tombstones to build walls around the ghetto in Krakow
China is a dystopian autocracy, marrying elements of the Khmer Rouge and Nazism, with the economic and technological power of the USA. Terrifying.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
Yes indeed.
It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.
I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.
Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
Canada is different because they don't want to be like America, and being a republic would make them so.
Plus, the monarchy has some more constructive relationships with the indigenous people historically (as to a lesser extent does New Zealand) so it commands a level of progressive support too.
But, you can count on the fingers of one hand how long Australia will last. New Zealand is borderline. Carribbean islands will mainly go. Thought not the Pacific Islands and PNG, I suspect, who don't have the same historical hang-ups and admire the institution more.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
When the aliens land, they still should only devote BBC1 to covering it. There will still be people expecting to see Masterchef on BBC2.
You've done a funny!
I'm impressed.
If aliens did land, personally I wouldn't be gawping at the TV all day about it. It's not really my thing. I can appreciate it would be very momentous, but I'd become apprised of the salient facts via PB and people I know in due course. It's very 1960's to be glued to the screen waiting for someone to tell you what to think.
That's why I don't really mind the wall to wall Prince Phillip, because I don't really watch it. I am a Royalist and I am interested in his life, but no more interested than I was before he died.
Probably a boost to the Conservatives to have elections close to the passing of a Royal Family member - Whe people are discussing the results in four years or whenever the next lot of these elections are, they should bear this in mind perhaps?
The Death boost, following the vaccine boost, who'dve thought it?
It has helped from the point of view that the **** storm heading towards Johnson has been blown off course. Northern Ireland, AZ and Cameron are footnotes instead of headlines.
Proof, if it were needed, than Johnson isn't just a very naughty boy, he is the Messiah.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Not the WORLD. C'mon.
She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
When the aliens land, they still should only devote BBC1 to covering it. There will still be people expecting to see Masterchef on BBC2.
You've done a funny!
I'm impressed.
If aliens did land, personally I wouldn't be gawping at the TV all day about it. It's not really my thing. I can appreciate it would be very momentous, but I'd become apprised of the salient facts via PB and people I know in due course. It's very 1960's to be glued to the screen waiting for someone to tell you what to think.
That's why I don't really mind the wall to wall Prince Phillip, because I don't really watch it. I am a Royalist and I am interested in his life, but no more interested than I was before he died.
The nation in mourning is quite a moment and the generous tributes to Prince Philip and the Queen seem genuine, heartfelt and not only from here in the UK, but worldwide
I can just recall the Queens wedding in November 1947 but remember the death of her Father and the news that she became Queen, actually in Kenya. Also the coronation itself, as we had most of our neighbours in to watch on our very small black and white tv all day, with our former blackout curtains drawn and my Grandmother standing to attention whenever the national anthem was played, and even when it was not, bless her
I have largely been a republican for most of my life but of recent times have recognised the Queen, indeed have become very fond of her, and also the role Philip has played alongside her
I am so sorry for the queen who must be devastated.
I know my wife and I have been together for near 60 years since we first met and a lifetime of love and companionship lost would devastate the surviving one of us
I know some are unsympathetic and upset at the interruption to politics and their daily TV schedule, but there are times when events occur that are historic and this is one such event which is quite rare in our daily lives
I would hope it will bring our Country together and we could see more kindness and less conflict, but no doubt that is a vain hope, not least since Turkey has given Joe permission to send two US warships into the Black Sea following Russia's troop build up in the Crimea
Blimey! Nicholas Witchell has hacked BigG.'s PB account!
Has he been married near 60 years
No - these are my words and expressed as someone who has been in a lifetime marriage and feels for the Queen and her loss
We can all feel for a 95 year old woman who has lost a life-time companion.
That does not mean that it is necessary to have the same programme on every BBC channel. One channel would have been quite enough. Marking an important occasion is one thing. But there is a fine line between that and a sort of emotional bullying of everyone into feeling things they do not feel. Diana's death was the worst example of that and, ironically, the Royal Family were at the receiving end.
I am sorry that Philip has died, not least because of the impact on his family. It would have been nice for him to have reached 100 years. It marks the end of an era. It reminds us that HMQ too may not be long for this world. But he had a long life, well-lived, and a peaceful death. And since he did not want a fuss it is unnecessary for the rest of us to go overboard or berate those who do not want to listen to the reminiscences of every single person who ever met him for 5 minutes.
Pretending to feelings we don't have is silly and, it seems to me, insensitive to those who genuinely do feel grief and a sense of loss.
I agree the coverage is OTT but it doesn't really bother me because I just don't watch it. I am, however, hoping that on PB it goes away quickly, since I spend far more time on PB than I do watching telly. This last bit being food for thought and possibly requiring corrective action.
I’m wondering how this prolonged Duke of E coverage will go down with different communities
eg What will the BAMEs make of it? Any thoughts?
Using "the BAMEs" in this way smacks of casual, dehumanizing racism. I won't answer the question unless reworded. And even then I probably won't.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend by using ‘the’. I will rephrase
What do you think BAMEs will make of it?
That is slightly better. But it still sounds "off" the way you're putting it.
Do you want me to show how it can be rectified? I don't mind. Not everyone has a feel for this sort of thing.
This is exactly what I want! I know you're very vigilant, informed and hyper-aware of the correct use of these terms, especially BAME. Indeed, you have told us you deem BAME to the "best, most inclusive term of all", so I am eager to be schooled
How should I use it?
It's actually quite easy. You should have asked the question something like this -
"How do you think the wall to wall coverage of 'RIP Philip' would have gone down with our various BAME communities?"
That's fine. It does not have the "off" feel that your version did. All with an ear for language will see this. Language in general, I mean. This has nothing to do with being PC or any of that.
So, great, I can answer it now, and I guess I may as well. Get this dealt with and into the out tray. Here goes -
"What an odd question. I have absolutely no idea."
(No charge)
Well I don't like the term BAME and this is the first and last time I ever use it. As for "BAME communities" - what are they? You mean figuratively, I guess, but why lump individuals into groups anyway?
Entirely up to you. I see neither virtue nor vice in that. But on the general point - sometimes grouping people by various id metrics (inc ethnicity) - if you avoid that in all circumstances you are rather hampering your ability to discuss quite a few things, I'd have thought.
Eg, subject: The educational attainment of black, working class boys.
How can we frame that without "black" and "working class" and "boys"?
For me, using these "lumping" terms is not saying that everyone is not an individual. We just need these terms sometimes to talk properly about what we want to talk about.
Firstly I'd say skin-colour is different to the other two examples you give and secondly it doesn't justify the addition of "communities".
If I was Asian-British, for example, I'd object to being referred to as BAME and I'd be even more annoyed that I was being fingered as being part of an imaginary community.
Community can be misleading, I agree. Usually "people" works just as well.
But on the main point, I don't really get you.
Is skin colour is so sensitive that it cannot be referred to at all iyo?
If so, different example, how are we to talk about the distrust of the metropolitan police felt in the black comm... by so many black people in London?
I don't think skin colour is sensitive at all - I think it's irrelevant.
Don't get you at all. So, back to my question then -
How are we to discuss the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London if we first pronounce that skin colour is irrelevant?
Refer to the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London.
Not by the fictional "black community" of London.
Exactly, Philip. Nice one. But per Stocky we shouldn't say "black". Cos it's irrelevant.
That's what I'm probing.
It is pretty irrelevant, unless you're a racist most of the time.
You should say black if you mean black, but if you say "black community" and lump all blacks together as some black whole then you are racist.
A lot of people on your side of politics never hesitated to point out the hurt and suffering that Corbyn and some others were causing to the Jewish community. I assume you'd have the same objection to lumping Jewish people together into a 'community'.
Of course I would, lumping all Jewish people together into a 'community' is antisemitic.
Probably a boost to the Conservatives to have elections close to the passing of a Royal Family member - Whe people are discussing the results in four years or whenever the next lot of these elections are, they should bear this in mind perhaps?
The Death boost, following the vaccine boost, who'dve thought it?
It has helped from the point of view that the **** storm heading towards Johnson has been blown off course. Northern Ireland, AZ and Cameron are footnotes instead of headlines.
Proof, if it were needed, than Johnson isn't just a very naughty boy, he is the Messiah.
I always though that was the appropriate quotation for him - but when in comparison to Trump.
So the people who usually complain that the BBC just shows shite like Bargain Hunt and The One Show all complained that the BBC cancelled shite like Bargain Hunt and The One Show.
Then there are those who keep saying that they never watch the BBC, but had a problem with yesterday's output.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
Yes indeed.
It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.
I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.
Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
Canada is different because they don't want to be like America, and being a republic would make them so.
Plus, the monarchy has some more constructive relationships with the indigenous people historically (as to a lesser extent does New Zealand) so it commands a level of progressive support too.
But, you can count on the fingers of one hand how long Australia will last. New Zealand is borderline. Carribbean islands will mainly go. Thought not the Pacific Islands and PNG, I suspect, who don't have the same historical hang-ups and admire the institution more.
I'm officially converted. Mrs and I will spend early Saturday evenings speculating on whether someone can sing or not based purely on their looks from this day forth.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
Yes indeed.
It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.
I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.
Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
Canada is different because they don't want to be like America, and being a republic would make them so.
Plus, the monarchy has some more constructive relationships with the indigenous people historically (as to a lesser extent does New Zealand) so it commands a level of progressive support too.
But, you can count on the fingers of one hand how long Australia will last. New Zealand is borderline. Carribbean islands will mainly go. Thought not the Pacific Islands and PNG, I suspect, who don't have the same historical hang-ups and admire the institution more.
As long as the conservative Coalition remain in power in Australia there will be no second referendum on the monarchy, it will require a Labor PM to call it.
However even in Australia a January poll had 40% of Australians opposed to the country becoming a republic (including 52% of Coalition voters) and just 34% in favour (41% of Labor voters and 46% of Green voters backed a republic)
"I can see your Voice" with Paddy McGuinness has just come on. Could a kind soul point me to a Prince Philip tribute show?
Another crap Paddy McGuinness show, sums up terrestrial tv these days.
Actually. I am watching it. Slack jawed in admiration at the cojones of whoever pitched the idea. It really is too bizarre for words. No description could possibly do it justice.
CNN: BBC deluged with complaints over wall-to-wall Prince Philip coverage
Royalists will now be appalled no Prince Philip special coverage on any mainstream channel.
The Hit List on BBC1, Rugby League on BBC2, Catchphrase Celebrity Special on ITV, the news followed by Grand Designs on C4 and Susan Calman's Grand Day Out on C5
Hi HYUFD
A simple I was wrong on television coverage is now required from you and you know what, admitting you are wrong on occasions is very good for the soul
I never said the funeral would definitely not be covered by TV, I said it might not even be televised, so no apology necessary.
However I still think it would have made more sense to have a televised State Memorial Service later in the year post Covid restrictions but that is up to them.
The service next week will be just 30 attendees, almost all royal family plus the PM and Archbishop of Canterbury who will do the service, an organist and no more than 8 in the choir
In response to my comment you said you would not televise it
CNN: BBC deluged with complaints over wall-to-wall Prince Philip coverage
Royalists will now be appalled no Prince Philip special coverage on any mainstream channel.
The Hit List on BBC1, Rugby League on BBC2, Catchphrase Celebrity Special on ITV, the news followed by Grand Designs on C4 and Susan Calman's Grand Day Out on C5
Hi HYUFD
A simple I was wrong on television coverage is now required from you and you know what, admitting you are wrong on occasions is very good for the soul
I never said the funeral would definitely not be covered by TV, I said it might not even be televised, so no apology necessary.
However I still think it would have made more sense to have a televised State Memorial Service later in the year post Covid restrictions but that is up to them.
The service next week will be just 30 attendees, almost all royal family plus the PM and Archbishop of Canterbury who will do the service, an organist and no more than 8 in the choir
In response to my comment you said you would not televise it
Under current Covid rules only 30 will be in attendance ie close family and friends only, there may not even be a choir.
Personally I would not televise it but televise a State Memorial after Covid restrictions have fully eased from late June
Yes and I standby my comment, personally I would have had it as a private family funeral for the 30 and have had a televised State Memorial later in the year as Covid restrictions ease.
However it is up to the royal family, if they want to televise it so be it
Campaigning resumes after tributes conclude on Monday (they might go on a bit so I imagine that means Tuesday), with a pause next Saturday during the funeral.
I would expect all parties to recommence on the Monday, not on the weekend itself
Mum had a bad reaction to her second Covid jab earlier today.
She shouted at me accusing me of being too paranoid about her reaction
I've had absolutely no adverse reaction to my second AZ jab yesterday. A bit of a relief, because after the first one I (and other half) felt distinctly grotty for the following two days. Obviously I can't extrapolate, but for us it looks as if the second dose is more benevolent.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
Yes indeed.
It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.
I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.
Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
Canada is different because they don't want to be like America, and being a republic would make them so.
Plus, the monarchy has some more constructive relationships with the indigenous people historically (as to a lesser extent does New Zealand) so it commands a level of progressive support too.
But, you can count on the fingers of one hand how long Australia will last. New Zealand is borderline. Carribbean islands will mainly go. Thought not the Pacific Islands and PNG, I suspect, who don't have the same historical hang-ups and admire the institution more.
As long as the conservative Coalition remain in power in Australia there will be no second referendum on the monarchy, it will require a Labor PM to call it.
However even in Australia a January poll had 40% of Australians opposed to the country becoming a republic (including 52% of Coalition voters) and just 34% in favour (41% of Labor voters and 46% of Green voters backed a republic)
CNN: BBC deluged with complaints over wall-to-wall Prince Philip coverage
Royalists will now be appalled no Prince Philip special coverage on any mainstream channel.
The Hit List on BBC1, Rugby League on BBC2, Catchphrase Celebrity Special on ITV, the news followed by Grand Designs on C4 and Susan Calman's Grand Day Out on C5
Hi HYUFD
A simple I was wrong on television coverage is now required from you and you know what, admitting you are wrong on occasions is very good for the soul
I never said the funeral would definitely not be covered by TV, I said it might not even be televised, so no apology necessary.
However I still think it would have made more sense to have a televised State Memorial Service later in the year post Covid restrictions but that is up to them.
The service next week will be just 30 attendees, almost all royal family plus the PM and Archbishop of Canterbury who will do the service, an organist and no more than 8 in the choir
In response to my comment you said you would not televise it
Under current Covid rules only 30 will be in attendance ie close family and friends only, there may not even be a choir.
Personally I would not televise it but televise a State Memorial after Covid restrictions have fully eased from late June
Yes and I standby my comment, personally I would have had it as a private family funeral for the 30 and have had a televised State Memorial later in the year as Covid restrictions ease.
However it is up to the royal family, if they want to televise it so be it
Indeed and your view did not seem to be taken into account by the Queen
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
Yes indeed.
It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.
I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.
Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
Canada is different because they don't want to be like America, and being a republic would make them so.
Plus, the monarchy has some more constructive relationships with the indigenous people historically (as to a lesser extent does New Zealand) so it commands a level of progressive support too.
But, you can count on the fingers of one hand how long Australia will last. New Zealand is borderline. Carribbean islands will mainly go. Thought not the Pacific Islands and PNG, I suspect, who don't have the same historical hang-ups and admire the institution more.
As long as the conservative Coalition remain in power in Australia there will be no second referendum on the monarchy, it will require a Labor PM to call it.
However even in Australia a January poll had 40% of Australians opposed to the country becoming a republic (including 52% of Coalition voters) and just 34% in favour (41% of Labor voters and 46% of Green voters backed a republic)
The nation in mourning is quite a moment and the generous tributes to Prince Philip and the Queen seem genuine, heartfelt and not only from here in the UK, but worldwide
I can just recall the Queens wedding in November 1947 but remember the death of her Father and the news that she became Queen, actually in Kenya. Also the coronation itself, as we had most of our neighbours in to watch on our very small black and white tv all day, with our former blackout curtains drawn and my Grandmother standing to attention whenever the national anthem was played, and even when it was not, bless her
I have largely been a republican for most of my life but of recent times have recognised the Queen, indeed have become very fond of her, and also the role Philip has played alongside her
I am so sorry for the queen who must be devastated.
I know my wife and I have been together for near 60 years since we first met and a lifetime of love and companionship lost would devastate the surviving one of us
I know some are unsympathetic and upset at the interruption to politics and their daily TV schedule, but there are times when events occur that are historic and this is one such event which is quite rare in our daily lives
I would hope it will bring our Country together and we could see more kindness and less conflict, but no doubt that is a vain hope, not least since Turkey has given Joe permission to send two US warships into the Black Sea following Russia's troop build up in the Crimea
Blimey! Nicholas Witchell has hacked BigG.'s PB account!
Has he been married near 60 years
No - these are my words and expressed as someone who has been in a lifetime marriage and feels for the Queen and her loss
We can all feel for a 95 year old woman who has lost a life-time companion.
That does not mean that it is necessary to have the same programme on every BBC channel. One channel would have been quite enough. Marking an important occasion is one thing. But there is a fine line between that and a sort of emotional bullying of everyone into feeling things they do not feel. Diana's death was the worst example of that and, ironically, the Royal Family were at the receiving end.
I am sorry that Philip has died, not least because of the impact on his family. It would have been nice for him to have reached 100 years. It marks the end of an era. It reminds us that HMQ too may not be long for this world. But he had a long life, well-lived, and a peaceful death. And since he did not want a fuss it is unnecessary for the rest of us to go overboard or berate those who do not want to listen to the reminiscences of every single person who ever met him for 5 minutes.
Pretending to feelings we don't have is silly and, it seems to me, insensitive to those who genuinely do feel grief and a sense of loss.
I agree the coverage is OTT but it doesn't really bother me because I just don't watch it. I am, however, hoping that on PB it goes away quickly, since I spend far more time on PB than I do watching telly. This last bit being food for thought and possibly requiring corrective action.
I’m wondering how this prolonged Duke of E coverage will go down with different communities
eg What will the BAMEs make of it? Any thoughts?
Using "the BAMEs" in this way smacks of casual, dehumanizing racism. I won't answer the question unless reworded. And even then I probably won't.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend by using ‘the’. I will rephrase
What do you think BAMEs will make of it?
That is slightly better. But it still sounds "off" the way you're putting it.
Do you want me to show how it can be rectified? I don't mind. Not everyone has a feel for this sort of thing.
This is exactly what I want! I know you're very vigilant, informed and hyper-aware of the correct use of these terms, especially BAME. Indeed, you have told us you deem BAME to the "best, most inclusive term of all", so I am eager to be schooled
How should I use it?
It's actually quite easy. You should have asked the question something like this -
"How do you think the wall to wall coverage of 'RIP Philip' would have gone down with our various BAME communities?"
That's fine. It does not have the "off" feel that your version did. All with an ear for language will see this. Language in general, I mean. This has nothing to do with being PC or any of that.
So, great, I can answer it now, and I guess I may as well. Get this dealt with and into the out tray. Here goes -
"What an odd question. I have absolutely no idea."
(No charge)
Well I don't like the term BAME and this is the first and last time I ever use it. As for "BAME communities" - what are they? You mean figuratively, I guess, but why lump individuals into groups anyway?
Entirely up to you. I see neither virtue nor vice in that. But on the general point - sometimes grouping people by various id metrics (inc ethnicity) - if you avoid that in all circumstances you are rather hampering your ability to discuss quite a few things, I'd have thought.
Eg, subject: The educational attainment of black, working class boys.
How can we frame that without "black" and "working class" and "boys"?
For me, using these "lumping" terms is not saying that everyone is not an individual. We just need these terms sometimes to talk properly about what we want to talk about.
Firstly I'd say skin-colour is different to the other two examples you give and secondly it doesn't justify the addition of "communities".
If I was Asian-British, for example, I'd object to being referred to as BAME and I'd be even more annoyed that I was being fingered as being part of an imaginary community.
Community can be misleading, I agree. Usually "people" works just as well.
But on the main point, I don't really get you.
Is skin colour is so sensitive that it cannot be referred to at all iyo?
If so, different example, how are we to talk about the distrust of the metropolitan police felt in the black comm... by so many black people in London?
I don't think skin colour is sensitive at all - I think it's irrelevant.
Don't get you at all. So, back to my question then -
How are we to discuss the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London if we first pronounce that skin colour is irrelevant?
Refer to the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London.
Not by the fictional "black community" of London.
Exactly, Philip. Nice one. But per Stocky we shouldn't say "black". Cos it's irrelevant.
That's what I'm probing.
It is pretty irrelevant, unless you're a racist most of the time.
You should say black if you mean black, but if you say "black community" and lump all blacks together as some black whole then you are racist.
A lot of people on your side of politics never hesitated to point out the hurt and suffering that Corbyn and some others were causing to the Jewish community. I assume you'd have the same objection to lumping Jewish people together into a 'community'.
Of course I would, lumping all Jewish people together into a 'community' is antisemitic.
Corbyn was causing hurt to Jews.
You wouldn't be lumping all Jews together there, Philip, would you?
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
Yes indeed.
It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.
I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.
Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
Canada is different because they don't want to be like America, and being a republic would make them so.
Plus, the monarchy has some more constructive relationships with the indigenous people historically (as to a lesser extent does New Zealand) so it commands a level of progressive support too.
But, you can count on the fingers of one hand how long Australia will last. New Zealand is borderline. Carribbean islands will mainly go. Thought not the Pacific Islands and PNG, I suspect, who don't have the same historical hang-ups and admire the institution more.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
Yes indeed.
It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.
I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.
Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
Canada is different because they don't want to be like America, and being a republic would make them so.
Plus, the monarchy has some more constructive relationships with the indigenous people historically (as to a lesser extent does New Zealand) so it commands a level of progressive support too.
But, you can count on the fingers of one hand how long Australia will last. New Zealand is borderline. Carribbean islands will mainly go. Thought not the Pacific Islands and PNG, I suspect, who don't have the same historical hang-ups and admire the institution more.
As long as the conservative Coalition remain in power in Australia there will be no second referendum on the monarchy, it will require a Labor PM to call it.
However even in Australia a January poll had 40% of Australians opposed to the country becoming a republic (including 52% of Coalition voters) and just 34% in favour (41% of Labor voters and 46% of Green voters backed a republic)
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
Yes indeed.
It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.
I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.
Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
Canada is different because they don't want to be like America, and being a republic would make them so.
Plus, the monarchy has some more constructive relationships with the indigenous people historically (as to a lesser extent does New Zealand) so it commands a level of progressive support too.
But, you can count on the fingers of one hand how long Australia will last. New Zealand is borderline. Carribbean islands will mainly go. Thought not the Pacific Islands and PNG, I suspect, who don't have the same historical hang-ups and admire the institution more.
As long as the conservative Coalition remain in power in Australia there will be no second referendum on the monarchy, it will require a Labor PM to call it.
However even in Australia a January poll had 40% of Australians opposed to the country becoming a republic (including 52% of Coalition voters) and just 34% in favour (41% of Labor voters and 46% of Green voters backed a republic)
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
Yes indeed.
It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.
I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.
Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
Canada is different because they don't want to be like America, and being a republic would make them so.
Plus, the monarchy has some more constructive relationships with the indigenous people historically (as to a lesser extent does New Zealand) so it commands a level of progressive support too.
But, you can count on the fingers of one hand how long Australia will last. New Zealand is borderline. Carribbean islands will mainly go. Thought not the Pacific Islands and PNG, I suspect, who don't have the same historical hang-ups and admire the institution more.
Barbados will become a republic in November.
They and several others in the region have announced the intention to do so many times before. Frankly I'm amazed they lasted this long.
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
It's in line with a bunch of other recent surveys so not really such a surprise. It takes the Government roughly back to where it was last Summer; Labour is marginally weaker, to the benefit of the Lib Dems and Greens.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
Yes indeed.
It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.
I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.
Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
Canada is different because they don't want to be like America, and being a republic would make them so.
Plus, the monarchy has some more constructive relationships with the indigenous people historically (as to a lesser extent does New Zealand) so it commands a level of progressive support too.
But, you can count on the fingers of one hand how long Australia will last. New Zealand is borderline. Carribbean islands will mainly go. Thought not the Pacific Islands and PNG, I suspect, who don't have the same historical hang-ups and admire the institution more.
As long as the conservative Coalition remain in power in Australia there will be no second referendum on the monarchy, it will require a Labor PM to call it.
However even in Australia a January poll had 40% of Australians opposed to the country becoming a republic (including 52% of Coalition voters) and just 34% in favour (41% of Labor voters and 46% of Green voters backed a republic)
I think William could hold it for another 20-30 years.
But, you have to get past Charlie boy first.
Can't we just have an election to decide between them?
Actually, elected monarchies have been a thing in the past.
Not our style though. Charlie needs to pull off an Edward VII job and exceed expectations.
He can do it. But he has to want to do it.
He should act as surrogate de facto monarch from now in, IMHO, and step up - it will help.
Well, the Palace has been preparing for a regency (see Herdson), and now would probably be apposite for a pseudo-regency.
I say go completely traditional, and whoever is the biggest bastard gets the job.
I think some people are under the mistaken impression that all UK monarchists are gnashing their teeth at the prospect of commonwealth realms becoming republics. It's a thing. Probably a pretty common thing.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
Yes indeed.
It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.
I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.
Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
Canada is different because they don't want to be like America, and being a republic would make them so.
Plus, the monarchy has some more constructive relationships with the indigenous people historically (as to a lesser extent does New Zealand) so it commands a level of progressive support too.
But, you can count on the fingers of one hand how long Australia will last. New Zealand is borderline. Carribbean islands will mainly go. Thought not the Pacific Islands and PNG, I suspect, who don't have the same historical hang-ups and admire the institution more.
I don't think we should treat it as a slight. I like to think we generally sympathise with nations desiring to be self-governing and constitutionally distinct.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
Yes indeed.
It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.
I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.
Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
Canada is different because they don't want to be like America, and being a republic would make them so.
Plus, the monarchy has some more constructive relationships with the indigenous people historically (as to a lesser extent does New Zealand) so it commands a level of progressive support too.
But, you can count on the fingers of one hand how long Australia will last. New Zealand is borderline. Carribbean islands will mainly go. Thought not the Pacific Islands and PNG, I suspect, who don't have the same historical hang-ups and admire the institution more.
Barbados will become a republic in November.
Also: how many Commonwealth republics are becoming monarchies?
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
He is a 'someone reasonably sensible for the time being' leader who knows full well he won't become PM. His party know this too.
The problem for Labour, actually one of many, is who will?
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
Yes indeed.
It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.
I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.
Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
Canada is different because they don't want to be like America, and being a republic would make them so.
Plus, the monarchy has some more constructive relationships with the indigenous people historically (as to a lesser extent does New Zealand) so it commands a level of progressive support too.
But, you can count on the fingers of one hand how long Australia will last. New Zealand is borderline. Carribbean islands will mainly go. Thought not the Pacific Islands and PNG, I suspect, who don't have the same historical hang-ups and admire the institution more.
I don't think we should treat it as a slight. I like to think we generally sympathise with nations desiring to be self-governing and constitutionally distinct.
They are self-governing.
The more Commonwealth realms there are the closer and more personal the family links and association, which is a form of personal alliance that I'd mourn to lose.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
Yes indeed.
It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.
I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.
Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
Canada is different because they don't want to be like America, and being a republic would make them so.
Plus, the monarchy has some more constructive relationships with the indigenous people historically (as to a lesser extent does New Zealand) so it commands a level of progressive support too.
But, you can count on the fingers of one hand how long Australia will last. New Zealand is borderline. Carribbean islands will mainly go. Thought not the Pacific Islands and PNG, I suspect, who don't have the same historical hang-ups and admire the institution more.
As long as the conservative Coalition remain in power in Australia there will be no second referendum on the monarchy, it will require a Labor PM to call it.
However even in Australia a January poll had 40% of Australians opposed to the country becoming a republic (including 52% of Coalition voters) and just 34% in favour (41% of Labor voters and 46% of Green voters backed a republic)
I think William could hold it for another 20-30 years.
But, you have to get past Charlie boy first.
Can't we just have an election to decide between them?
Actually, elected monarchies have been a thing in the past.
Not our style though. Charlie needs to pull off an Edward VII job and exceed expectations.
He can do it. But he has to want to do it.
He should act as surrogate de facto monarch from now in, IMHO, and step up - it will help.
Well, the Palace has been preparing for a regency (see Herdson), and now would probably be apposite for a pseudo-regency.
I say go completely traditional, and whoever is the biggest bastard gets the job.
I think some people are under the mistaken impression that all UK monarchists are gnashing their teeth at the prospect of commonwealth realms becoming republics. It's a thing. Probably a pretty common thing.
I remember the speculation about a regency myself, from a couple of years back. The suggestion was that The Queen might retire when she got to 95.
She is 95 this month. She may feel that now is an appropriate time.
"@CaminoMortera 60 per cent of people with an appointment to get AstraZeneca jab in Madrid did not show up today. "
On a purely selfish note that may well accelerate my jab offer, as they are to start offering it to 66-69 year olds after they finish the 60-65 group. And yes it is as utterly bananas as it sounds!
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
Nonsense. He sounded fine. You're just saying this to bring yourself in line with the polls. It's called chasing shrewdness when you're not. When the polls change you'll forget this comment. I won't though. I forget nothing. Call me Nellie the Elephant. Well, no, don't - I'd hate that - but you get the point.
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
Sounds like the bloke in the Tunes advert from the 80s - “a return to Dottingum” I think it was
Not having the forum spammed full of tweets is a huge improvement, particularly for users with tablets or phones.
If something in a tweet is worth reading, it only takes a second to cut and paste.
You could have chosen that before in your browser's preferences. Someone here pointed that out a few months ago and I have enjoyed absence of tweet-spamming since then.
That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.
Not just for us, but for the World.
You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.
Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc
Off the scale.
There's a big difference with the death of HMQ, and that it's also when the new guy takes over the top job. So it's two big events in one. There would surely be lots about the new King.
Yes indeed.
It'll also mean some fundamental questions for us and the Commonwealth - which will lead to an uncertain and unstable period, IMHO, and may even feed into global politics.
I feel for Charles actually. Boy oh boy, what an act to follow, and what a challenge.
13 Commonwealth nations became Republics in the Queen's reign let us not forget, out of the 54 Commonwealth nations only 16 still retain the Queen as Head of State and only there will Charles become King.
Nations like Canada are secure anyway both Trudeau as Liberal PM and Conservative Leader of the Opposition O'Toole want to retain the monarchy
Canada is different because they don't want to be like America, and being a republic would make them so.
Plus, the monarchy has some more constructive relationships with the indigenous people historically (as to a lesser extent does New Zealand) so it commands a level of progressive support too.
But, you can count on the fingers of one hand how long Australia will last. New Zealand is borderline. Carribbean islands will mainly go. Thought not the Pacific Islands and PNG, I suspect, who don't have the same historical hang-ups and admire the institution more.
As long as the conservative Coalition remain in power in Australia there will be no second referendum on the monarchy, it will require a Labor PM to call it.
However even in Australia a January poll had 40% of Australians opposed to the country becoming a republic (including 52% of Coalition voters) and just 34% in favour (41% of Labor voters and 46% of Green voters backed a republic)
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
Sounds like the bloke in the Tunes advert from the 80s - “a return to Dottingum” I think it was
Very Milibandesque in his manner as well.
Actually, having just watched that as on YouTube, he sounds nothing like it. I take it back.
Mannerisms of Miliband though. The ‘can’t the PM doesnt agree with me’ faux shock schtick
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
Nonsense. He sounded fine. You're just saying this to bring yourself in line with the polls. It's called chasing shrewdness when you're not. When the polls change you'll forget this comment. I won't though. I forget nothing. Call me Nellie the Elephant. Well, no, don't - I'd hate that - but you get the point.
The nation in mourning is quite a moment and the generous tributes to Prince Philip and the Queen seem genuine, heartfelt and not only from here in the UK, but worldwide
I can just recall the Queens wedding in November 1947 but remember the death of her Father and the news that she became Queen, actually in Kenya. Also the coronation itself, as we had most of our neighbours in to watch on our very small black and white tv all day, with our former blackout curtains drawn and my Grandmother standing to attention whenever the national anthem was played, and even when it was not, bless her
I have largely been a republican for most of my life but of recent times have recognised the Queen, indeed have become very fond of her, and also the role Philip has played alongside her
I am so sorry for the queen who must be devastated.
I know my wife and I have been together for near 60 years since we first met and a lifetime of love and companionship lost would devastate the surviving one of us
I know some are unsympathetic and upset at the interruption to politics and their daily TV schedule, but there are times when events occur that are historic and this is one such event which is quite rare in our daily lives
I would hope it will bring our Country together and we could see more kindness and less conflict, but no doubt that is a vain hope, not least since Turkey has given Joe permission to send two US warships into the Black Sea following Russia's troop build up in the Crimea
Blimey! Nicholas Witchell has hacked BigG.'s PB account!
Has he been married near 60 years
No - these are my words and expressed as someone who has been in a lifetime marriage and feels for the Queen and her loss
We can all feel for a 95 year old woman who has lost a life-time companion.
That does not mean that it is necessary to have the same programme on every BBC channel. One channel would have been quite enough. Marking an important occasion is one thing. But there is a fine line between that and a sort of emotional bullying of everyone into feeling things they do not feel. Diana's death was the worst example of that and, ironically, the Royal Family were at the receiving end.
I am sorry that Philip has died, not least because of the impact on his family. It would have been nice for him to have reached 100 years. It marks the end of an era. It reminds us that HMQ too may not be long for this world. But he had a long life, well-lived, and a peaceful death. And since he did not want a fuss it is unnecessary for the rest of us to go overboard or berate those who do not want to listen to the reminiscences of every single person who ever met him for 5 minutes.
Pretending to feelings we don't have is silly and, it seems to me, insensitive to those who genuinely do feel grief and a sense of loss.
I agree the coverage is OTT but it doesn't really bother me because I just don't watch it. I am, however, hoping that on PB it goes away quickly, since I spend far more time on PB than I do watching telly. This last bit being food for thought and possibly requiring corrective action.
I’m wondering how this prolonged Duke of E coverage will go down with different communities
eg What will the BAMEs make of it? Any thoughts?
Using "the BAMEs" in this way smacks of casual, dehumanizing racism. I won't answer the question unless reworded. And even then I probably won't.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend by using ‘the’. I will rephrase
What do you think BAMEs will make of it?
That is slightly better. But it still sounds "off" the way you're putting it.
Do you want me to show how it can be rectified? I don't mind. Not everyone has a feel for this sort of thing.
This is exactly what I want! I know you're very vigilant, informed and hyper-aware of the correct use of these terms, especially BAME. Indeed, you have told us you deem BAME to the "best, most inclusive term of all", so I am eager to be schooled
How should I use it?
It's actually quite easy. You should have asked the question something like this -
"How do you think the wall to wall coverage of 'RIP Philip' would have gone down with our various BAME communities?"
That's fine. It does not have the "off" feel that your version did. All with an ear for language will see this. Language in general, I mean. This has nothing to do with being PC or any of that.
So, great, I can answer it now, and I guess I may as well. Get this dealt with and into the out tray. Here goes -
"What an odd question. I have absolutely no idea."
(No charge)
Well I don't like the term BAME and this is the first and last time I ever use it. As for "BAME communities" - what are they? You mean figuratively, I guess, but why lump individuals into groups anyway?
Entirely up to you. I see neither virtue nor vice in that. But on the general point - sometimes grouping people by various id metrics (inc ethnicity) - if you avoid that in all circumstances you are rather hampering your ability to discuss quite a few things, I'd have thought.
Eg, subject: The educational attainment of black, working class boys.
How can we frame that without "black" and "working class" and "boys"?
For me, using these "lumping" terms is not saying that everyone is not an individual. We just need these terms sometimes to talk properly about what we want to talk about.
Firstly I'd say skin-colour is different to the other two examples you give and secondly it doesn't justify the addition of "communities".
If I was Asian-British, for example, I'd object to being referred to as BAME and I'd be even more annoyed that I was being fingered as being part of an imaginary community.
Community can be misleading, I agree. Usually "people" works just as well.
But on the main point, I don't really get you.
Is skin colour is so sensitive that it cannot be referred to at all iyo?
If so, different example, how are we to talk about the distrust of the metropolitan police felt in the black comm... by so many black people in London?
I don't think skin colour is sensitive at all - I think it's irrelevant.
Don't get you at all. So, back to my question then -
How are we to discuss the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London if we first pronounce that skin colour is irrelevant?
Refer to the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London.
Not by the fictional "black community" of London.
Exactly, Philip. Nice one. But per Stocky we shouldn't say "black". Cos it's irrelevant.
That's what I'm probing.
It is pretty irrelevant, unless you're a racist most of the time.
You should say black if you mean black, but if you say "black community" and lump all blacks together as some black whole then you are racist.
A lot of people on your side of politics never hesitated to point out the hurt and suffering that Corbyn and some others were causing to the Jewish community. I assume you'd have the same objection to lumping Jewish people together into a 'community'.
Of course I would, lumping all Jewish people together into a 'community' is antisemitic.
Corbyn was causing hurt to Jews.
You wouldn't be lumping all Jews together there, Philip, would you?
Just to say, the notion of "lumping all Jewish people together into a community" is actually an idea with a lot of support in traditional Jewish thought. Although clearly assuming everyone thinks the same and agrees on everything is provably wrong.
Anyway, it's a completely different situation to assuming all Black people are one community, as there is much greater cultural and ethnic diversity between (for example) Nigerians and Jamaicans.
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
Sounds like the bloke in the Tunes advert from the 80s - “a return to Dottingum” I think it was
Very Milibandesque in his manner as well.
God, we really are the same (aged) generation, aren't we?
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
He is a 'someone reasonably sensible for the time being' leader who knows full well he won't become PM. His party know this too.
The problem for Labour, actually one of many, is who will?
I think this underestimates the chance of SKS becoming PM, though I agree the chance is small. But, as long as he is leader, SKS becomes PM, for all statistically practical purposes, on the single contingency that the Tories fail to get enough seats to form a government. And while Labour winning x zillion seats to win outright has a negligible chance, the chances of the Tories not winning c320+ seats is real. SKS should not be written off.
If he has a different strategy from that one, call it the 'boring limpet' approach - I give it 25-30% chance - he certainly hasn't told us what it is.
His chance is effectively contingent not on him succeeding, he is too surrounded by nonentities for that, but the Tories wheels coming off. It may not look likely but I bet Boris thinks about it every day.
"@CaminoMortera 60 per cent of people with an appointment to get AstraZeneca jab in Madrid did not show up today. "
That is not good news
Not only that, but a city the size of Madrid stalling vaccination by just a day would almost certainly result in more deaths than the vaccine may cause even if every citizen was given AZ.
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
Sounds like the bloke in the Tunes advert from the 80s - “a return to Dottingum” I think it was
Very Milibandesque in his manner as well.
God, we really are the same (aged) generation, aren't we?
I remember that advert distinctly
The other day I genuinely couldn’t remember how old I was, that felt like a sign of ageing
I heard Starmer's tribute yesterday on the radio and, for the first time, it struck me how ODD he sounded - a weird tortured and contrived voice like he had two blokes sitting on his chest and a helium balloon in his throat.
My sense? Miliband part II.
He is a 'someone reasonably sensible for the time being' leader who knows full well he won't become PM. His party know this too.
The problem for Labour, actually one of many, is who will?
I think this underestimates the chance of SKS becoming PM, though I agree the chance is small. But, as long as he is leader, SKS becomes PM, for all statistically practical purposes, on the single contingency that the Tories fail to get enough seats to form a government. And while Labour winning x zillion seats to win outright has a negligible chance, the chances of the Tories not winning c320+ seats is real. SKS should not be written off.
If he has a different strategy from that one, call it the 'boring limpet' approach - I give it 25-30% chance - he certainly hasn't told us what it is.
His chance is effectively contingent not on him succeeding, he is too surrounded by nonentities for that, but the Tories wheels coming off. It may not look likely but I bet Boris thinks about it every day.
It's the Economy, innit?
As the pandemic finally recedes (God willing) we are left with the economy, which, to be honest, I expected to be in a far worse position than it is.
Inasmuch as I expected anything, economically, at the beginning of Covid I thought we were looking at a Great Depression, 15% unemployment, 10% permanent loss of output, just horrific. Instead, governments have borrowed and stimulated their way out of the toilet, with Biden wading in with cool trillions. UK unemployment right now is 5%.
5%!
Yes it's kind of imaginary, but the major governments of the world - esp the hard-hit West - may have fucked up their Covid response, but they've done a pretty good job of avoiding economic disaster
The debt may, in the end, kill us, but that won't happen for a few years.
Ergo, the Tories should be fine if they go to the people in 2023 (probably) or even 2024. There will be a post-plague mini-boom, and the economic endorphins will last until the election
"@CaminoMortera 60 per cent of people with an appointment to get AstraZeneca jab in Madrid did not show up today. "
That is not good news
Not only that, but a city the size of Madrid stalling vaccination by just a day would almost certainly result in more deaths than the vaccine may cause even if every citizen was given AZ.
Very different to my mothers experience yesterday when she went to get her second dose...the oldies had to be marshalled to stop the rush, acting like they heard there was a special on spam at Sainsbury's.
I don't know who on hear called it, but Megan Markle is unfortunately unable to fly to the UK for thr funeral on doctors orders.
I do wonder if they regret the furore they caused or maybe Harry does, as it is his family they declared war on
Somebody who would regret such a thing would have never done it in the first place as it was all carefully planned for a particular narrative. It wasn't like something that came about due to an unguarded comment on a hot mic.
Comments
In that you think a privileged guy can treat animals atrociously and people in Gorton should not.
Same mentality in my mind.
I think some seem to be saying it would be ok if it was a stray to treat a cat in such a way.
https://twitter.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/1380933543723950086?s=21
Unlike a Duke who took pleasure in killing them for no reason whatsoever.
have great evening all
What's that a tell of, do we think?
Plus, the monarchy has some more constructive relationships with the indigenous people historically (as to a lesser extent does New Zealand) so it commands a level of progressive support too.
But, you can count on the fingers of one hand how long Australia will last. New Zealand is borderline. Carribbean islands will mainly go. Thought not the Pacific Islands and PNG, I suspect, who don't have the same historical hang-ups and admire the institution more.
Proof, if it were needed, than Johnson isn't just a very naughty boy, he is the Messiah.
Corbyn was causing hurt to Jews.
Then there are those who keep saying that they never watch the BBC, but had a problem with yesterday's output.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1380954625252163595?s=20
Mrs and I will spend early Saturday evenings speculating on whether someone can sing or not based purely on their looks from this day forth.
However even in Australia a January poll had 40% of Australians opposed to the country becoming a republic (including 52% of Coalition voters) and just 34% in favour (41% of Labor voters and 46% of Green voters backed a republic)
https://www.smh.com.au/national/no-sense-of-momentum-poll-finds-drop-in-support-for-australia-becoming-a-republic-20210125-p56wpe.html
@Big_G_NorthWales
I would be very surprised if it was not televised to be honest
@HYUFD
Under current Covid rules only 30 will be in attendance ie close family and friends only, there may not even be a choir.
Personally I would not televise it but televise a State Memorial after Covid restrictions have fully eased from late June
She shouted at me accusing me of being too paranoid about her reaction
However it is up to the royal family, if they want to televise it so be it
60 per cent of people with an appointment to get AstraZeneca jab in Madrid did not show up today. "
In theory.
I did not expect that
But, you have to get past Charlie boy first.
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 45% (+4)
LAB: 36% (-1)
LDEM: 6% (-)
GRN: 4% (-1)
via @OpiniumResearch
, 08 - 09 Apr
Chgs. w/ 26 Mar
Not our style though. Charlie needs to pull off an Edward VII job and exceed expectations.
He can do it. But he has to want to do it.
He should act as surrogate de facto monarch from now in, IMHO, and step up - it will help.
My sense? Miliband part II.
I say go completely traditional, and whoever is the biggest bastard gets the job.
I think some people are under the mistaken impression that all UK monarchists are gnashing their teeth at the prospect of commonwealth realms becoming republics. It's a thing. Probably a pretty common thing.
The problem for Labour, actually one of many, is who will?
The more Commonwealth realms there are the closer and more personal the family links and association, which is a form of personal alliance that I'd mourn to lose.
That would make the whole "next in line" thing much more exciting, and improve the betting opportunities.
She is 95 this month. She may feel that now is an appropriate time.
If something in a tweet is worth reading, it only takes a second to cut and paste.
Then Queen Eugenie until 2025
Then King Columbus until 2029.
Then King Cassius until 2031.
What odds are you offering ?
Very Milibandesque in his manner as well.
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1380958779886465026?s=20
Boris Johnson urged to back new £120million Royal Yacht Britannia, named… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1380976619213426688
A strangulated form of English.
Mannerisms of Miliband though. The ‘can’t the PM doesnt agree with me’ faux shock schtick
Anyway, it's a completely different situation to assuming all Black people are one community, as there is much greater cultural and ethnic diversity between (for example) Nigerians and Jamaicans.
I remember that advert distinctly
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1380980059448705028?s=19
@BritainElects
·
3m
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 45% (+1)
LAB: 36% (-)
LDEM: 6% (-)
via @DeltapollUK
, 08 - 10 aPR
Chgs. w/ 27
Yup - that bounce is clearly over!
If he has a different strategy from that one, call it the 'boring limpet' approach - I give it 25-30% chance - he certainly hasn't told us what it is.
His chance is effectively contingent not on him succeeding, he is too surrounded by nonentities for that, but the Tories wheels coming off. It may not look likely but I bet Boris thinks about it every day.
The public notice explicitly says it's *not* a State Occasion.
It will be a Ceremonial Royal Funeral, the same as for Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, rather than a State Funeral.
Perhaps there will be a more official memorial / celebration later in the year. if not at some time I'll visit Frogmore to pay my respects.
As are the LibDems.
As the pandemic finally recedes (God willing) we are left with the economy, which, to be honest, I expected to be in a far worse position than it is.
Inasmuch as I expected anything, economically, at the beginning of Covid I thought we were looking at a Great Depression, 15% unemployment, 10% permanent loss of output, just horrific. Instead, governments have borrowed and stimulated their way out of the toilet, with Biden wading in with cool trillions. UK unemployment right now is 5%.
5%!
Yes it's kind of imaginary, but the major governments of the world - esp the hard-hit West - may have fucked up their Covid response, but they've done a pretty good job of avoiding economic disaster
The debt may, in the end, kill us, but that won't happen for a few years.
Ergo, the Tories should be fine if they go to the people in 2023 (probably) or even 2024. There will be a post-plague mini-boom, and the economic endorphins will last until the election
Starmer has a near-impossible task