Jack Straw is the latest labour voice to want to leave the ECHR
If Labour left the ECHR they’d be lucky to poll double digits.
I disagree. As long as they came up with a just and assertive alternative I think most current Labour voters would be happy with it - "direct entry of 30,000 pre-approved asylum seekers per year from *list of nations*, small boats = automatic disqualification". I don't see how anyone except people on the extreme left could disagree with that.
Much better would be to actually reform the thing to reflect 21st century reality. As one of the main original architects we just need to get on with it.
(I do note that the ECHR has 2:1 support across the electorate, so it would have to be handled carefully).
Getting reform of the ECHR through is basically impossible. The better bet is to form a new version alongside other nations and have them leave the old one behind. A version that doesn't allow convicted criminals to exploit it to evade deportation etc...
Jack Straw is the latest labour voice to want to leave the ECHR
If Labour left the ECHR they’d be lucky to poll double digits.
And if they don't the same could happen anyway
The demand is growing across labour as mps fear for their seats
I expect Labour will do something re judges interpretation of Article 8 . Leaving the ECHR is a red line for many Labour voters .
A response could be to declare an emergency and recluse from parts of the ECHR to deal with the immediate issue
The emergency derogation is quite complicated and has a high bar . I think the last time that was used was during the height of the troubles in NI .
I expect Labour will try initially to narrow how judges deal with Article 8 . This wouldn’t be that controversial. I’m minded to think of the current Labour approach as similar to the GB success at cycling. Loads of small changes , so marginal gains in the hope that collectively it helps to bring down the boat numbers .
Jack Straw is the latest labour voice to want to leave the ECHR
If Labour left the ECHR they’d be lucky to poll double digits.
And if they don't the same could happen anyway
The demand is growing across labour as mps fear for their seats
I expect Labour will do something re judges interpretation of Article 8 . Leaving the ECHR is a red line for many Labour voters .
A response could be to declare an emergency and recluse from parts of the ECHR to deal with the immediate issue
The emergency derogation is quite complicated and has a high bar . I think the last time that was used was during the height of the troubles in NI .
I expect Labour will try initially to narrow how judges deal with Article 8 . This wouldn’t be that controversial. I’m minded to think of the current Labour approach as similar to the GB success at cycling. Loads of small changes , so marginal gains in the hope that collectively it helps to bring down the boat numbers .
Donald Trump claims UK in for 'bad awakening' thanks to Starmer's energy policy Trump's comments come despite the UK's reliance on fossil fuels being one of the factors driving up energy costs, with wind power being significantly cheaper than nuclear, gas or coal https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/donald-trump-claims-uk-bad-35798659
Jack Straw is the latest labour voice to want to leave the ECHR
If Labour left the ECHR they’d be lucky to poll double digits.
And if they don't the same could happen anyway
The demand is growing across labour as mps fear for their seats
I expect Labour will do something re judges interpretation of Article 8 . Leaving the ECHR is a red line for many Labour voters .
A response could be to declare an emergency and recluse from parts of the ECHR to deal with the immediate issue
The emergency derogation is quite complicated and has a high bar . I think the last time that was used was during the height of the troubles in NI .
I expect Labour will try initially to narrow how judges deal with Article 8 . This wouldn’t be that controversial. I’m minded to think of the current Labour approach as similar to the GB success at cycling. Loads of small changes , so marginal gains in the hope that collectively it helps to bring down the boat numbers .
‘The People’s Party’ sounds too Blairite; ‘The People’s Princess’ & ‘The People’s Vote’ were the kind of Blair/Campbell/Starmer propaganda that I’d like to think Jezza would have nothing to do with
I also think 'Your Party' is a very good name, but we appear to be in a minority. It sounds like it belongs to the voters and doesn't necessarily have far left connotations like some of the others.
I agree . The People’s party seems a bit meh and Your seems more likely to appeal to a broader range of voters .
Surely any new self-respecting left-wing political party has to have a name which includes some combination of the following: Socialist, Peoples, Marxist, Progressive, Popular, Workers, Liberation, Leninist, and Collective. And of course there's always "Republican".
The Popular Progressive Democratic Marxist-Leninist People’s Revolutionary Front For The Liberation Of The Workers?
But hasn't left wing politics largely abandoned actual workers now?
What do you mean by "left wing" and "left wing politics"? Do you mean the current Labour in Government ie Starmer, Blue Labour (ie socially conservative), something more like Tony Benn post his conversion, or one of the more exotic varieties such as the Fruit and Nut Party, the SWP or TUSC? Those last 3 to me are "I'm not sure what", "People who just want 'workers' to be their useful idiots", and "Left Radicals more like Militant" (that last is a bit off but suffices).
For the Government, one of their perhaps three most important items of legislation has been about workers' rights, the Employment Rights Act. Their failure to drive home the message about it is one reason I think their Comms are still up a creek.
That covered (AI summary of some nuggets): "fire and rehire" practices, making day-one unfair dismissal rights effective in 2027, and modernizing trade union legislation with greater workplace access and simpler recognition processes. The bill also addresses zero-hour contracts, introduces parental leave and bereavement leave, and requires employers to inform staff of their right to join a trade union.
There's also the Minimum Wage measures - the biggish jump, and removing the lower minimum wage for younger adults.
That's several things and I don't agree with all of them, but abandoning the workers it is not.
Kim Jong-un to send 100k troops to Ukraine as North Koreans 'queue up' to fight for Putin North Korean troops claim they're ready to jump into Putin's war in Ukraine at any moment, with a rough figure of 100,000 people being mentioned by military experts https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/kim-jong-un-send-100k-35796347
I think what’s mistifying is just how useless no 10 comms have been . It’s really not rocket science , Labour have allowed all their mistakes to be amplified and any successes ignored .
I think what’s mistifying is just how useless no 10 comms have been . It’s really not rocket science , Labour have allowed all their mistakes to be amplified and any successes ignored .
What successes?! I can't really think of a single one over the past year, maybe the US trade deal?
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
It's nonsense. It's ahistorical bullshit. History is not there to provide work for actors but to accurately tell the story of the past, not revise it to conform to CurrentThink.
It's also especially stupid because there's an easy work around, if you think it's vitally important that actors get work: make it animated. Have the actors of whatever colour voice the Anglo-Saxons without pretending the Jutes came from Jamaica. History gets portrayed accurately, and the actors get roles regardless of skin colour.
But they're speaking modern English; not the very different languages that the Anglo-Saxons and Jutes spoke! What ahistorical nonsense!
Oh, you little tinker.
We live in an age where morons present racial propaganda claiming a white family famous for incest over generations produced a black African woman (Cleopatra) and the media regularly, and wrongly, portrays Hannibal Barca as a black African, as if the Sahara doesn't exist and North Africans = black.
Pretending that portraying history accurately is somehow a bad thing is a very odd take.
Personally I would prefer that we sought a consensus with other European countries in relation to ECHR and in the UN on the Convention for Refugees. A unified approach recognising the changes since 1952 and 1967 which make the current Convention unworkable would be better but the timescale for this is probably unacceptable. It is something our government should have been working on for more than a decade.
Unilateral action, such as contemplated by Reform, risks a lot of uncertainties, not least because it is likely to have knock on consequences for other countries which may well invite retaliation in ways we will not appreciate. What is increasingly clear is the live and let live attitude of our civil service, courts and political class is simply unacceptable to the majority. I am nervous that Farage will use this issue to propel himself into Downing Street unless the liberal consensus amongst the other parties breaks in a material way.
I think what’s mistifying is just how useless no 10 comms have been . It’s really not rocket science , Labour have allowed all their mistakes to be amplified and any successes ignored .
Like the last government really. Is good government comms just impossible in the modern world?
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
It's nonsense. It's ahistorical bullshit. History is not there to provide work for actors but to accurately tell the story of the past, not revise it to conform to CurrentThink.
It's also especially stupid because there's an easy work around, if you think it's vitally important that actors get work: make it animated. Have the actors of whatever colour voice the Anglo-Saxons without pretending the Jutes came from Jamaica. History gets portrayed accurately, and the actors get roles regardless of skin colour.
Is it materially more ahistorical than casting actors who are more than five foot tall and have all their own teeth?
This is from a pro govt account, so using these quotes as implied criticism of Reform, but I am of the opinion that it is the bogus asylum seekers who are to blame for any genuine refugees being stranded in dangerous places, not a foreign government who is refusing to accept the premise that 50,000 young men dossing in France must be taken in as if we owe them a favour.
Cathy Newman, "How does this sound to someone from Afghanistan who is facing torture or even death?"
Gawain Towler, member of Reform UK board, "We are not responsible for the whole world's problems.. I don't care about the whole world"
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
An interesting question - JezWeCan will find an audience.
The same on the far right. For all that RefUK is in the lead, the movement is fractured. We had the Big Speech yesterday and the Nigel couldn't help but attack Rupert Lowe. And up pops Ben Habib. Both are out there competing against the fukkers. Both have got the Lord Elon of Ket promoting them. Tommeh Two-Names as well.
It's entirely possible that Reform's groundswell of support ebbs away into splinter groups. As the racist right get emboldened we get demands for ever more hardcore solutions - Lowe wants to deport legal migrants, and we know that Sunil and TSE are on the radar of some of the furthest reaches of these "patriots"
If - and it is an IF - the far far right does fracture into Reform's vote, the beneficiaries will be the Tories and Labour. DYOR...
Or… the harder element that’s always been a part of the electorate melts into a Lowe / Tommy type offering, giving the green light for yet more of the rump Tory / Labour vote to shift to Farage.
Very possible, and what I would have expected. But - and its a big but - if the Lord of Ket throws his weight behind the far far right, then who knows where this goes.
Remember - this has been a social media storm in a teacup. The UK is not up in arms about the forrin, demanding a general election and a sainthood both for Connoley and that nice girl with the axe. Flags are a tiny minority sport. But the undercurrent of flames have been fanned on social media towards Farage.
If the fanning now changes direction towards a Powellite Send The Darkies Home position then we will test how shallow that Reform lead is.
Immigration now regularly polls as the most important issue for British voters. Sorry
Why are you sorry - its wholly unsustainable in its current post Boris mess.
My point is that the big push this summer has been to make racism acceptable, and now we have multiple competing platforms arguing for more and more deportations.
Clearly the Farage platform has primacy at the moment. But if Elon starts ramping Habib and Low and Tommeh - and he is - then where does the mob opinion swing and what happens to the vote? Farage the traitor, refusing to listen to good honest British people who want to send TSE home for his crime against shoes.
That's already something being shouted on X (not about TSE specifically...) and if Lord Ket carries on ramping then who knows where we go. The problem with political absolutism is that its never absolute enough. Which is why the far right and far left always fracture and fragment. I did wonder if Farage could pull it off this time. He still could, but if it fractures we saw all the signs of it yesterday.
"the big push this summer has been to make racism acceptable"
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
It's nonsense. It's ahistorical bullshit. History is not there to provide work for actors but to accurately tell the story of the past, not revise it to conform to CurrentThink.
It's also especially stupid because there's an easy work around, if you think it's vitally important that actors get work: make it animated. Have the actors of whatever colour voice the Anglo-Saxons without pretending the Jutes came from Jamaica. History gets portrayed accurately, and the actors get roles regardless of skin colour.
But they're speaking modern English; not the very different languages that the Anglo-Saxons and Jutes spoke! What ahistorical nonsense!
Oh, you little tinker.
We live in an age where morons present racial propaganda claiming a white family famous for incest over generations produced a black African woman (Cleopatra) and the media regularly, and wrongly, portrays Hannibal Barca as a black African, as if the Sahara doesn't exist and North Africans = black.
Pretending that portraying history accurately is somehow a bad thing is a very odd take.
Oh you silly little tinker.
None of these stories portray history 'accurately'. And I'd argue that portraying Cleopatra as a white woman is as much nonsense as portraying her as a black woman. She's likely to be similar in skin tone to Mrs J: Mediterranean / olive skinned, and appearing darker in summer and lighter in winter. Casting Lizzie Taylor was 'ahistorical nonsense'.
But it really does not matter much as long as they have a good story with great dialogue, and can act.
Donald Trump claims UK in for 'bad awakening' thanks to Starmer's energy policy Trump's comments come despite the UK's reliance on fossil fuels being one of the factors driving up energy costs, with wind power being significantly cheaper than nuclear, gas or coal https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/donald-trump-claims-uk-bad-35798659
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
And "5 flights a day" which would all have to be military because airlines / lease companies can't do ut.
We got civil operators to fly into Basra, Baghdad and Mosul on behalf of the UK government during the height of festivities there when there were SAMs and drones flying around. Shonky African operator + Russian crew + lots of money = nobody gives a fuck.
It's a lot simpler to do it with military aircraft and crews because they can be more easily coerced but the civil option isn't impossible even at the 5 flights/day scale.
Where does that sit on capacity?
Mr Farage doubled down on 500k-600k per annum deportations.
Is that doable on 5 flights a day, presumably on aircraft up to the size of a Globemaster or a Voyager, bearing in mind security personnel, load factor etc ?
500k a day is 1300 people a day so minimum 6 flights and probably more if you have any unwilling travellers...
And I don't see how the logistics works.
Also we don't exactly have 500k people arriving by boat so exactly who else is he planning to remove from the country...
Apparently they will be rounded up like in the USA with an ICE style unit .
I really do not see this happening
Stop the boats absolutely, but a US style purge is not acceptable
So how do you remove illegal immigrants who have melted into the ether if not with border force raids. They already happen fairly regularly at businesses suspected of using illegal labour, are you suggesting that we shouldn't be doing these either?
Weak willed liberals and their unending empathy for criminals and illegal immigrants are more dangerous for this country than the criminals and illegals.
I am not a weak willed liberal but what is going on in the US is unacceptable
By all means raid businesses suspected of employing illegal immigrants and I have no problem with everyone having a mandatory ID card
Can you tell us in detail exactly what's happening in the US that you wouldn't want to bring to the UK. As I see it they're using the same tactics as here, just more aggressively than we currently do and they're enforcing deportation rather than doing a catch and release as the UK does.
I think you've been watching too much nonsense on the news about the "horrors" of the US deportation programme when the reality is that even now Trump is still behind the deportation rate of Obama.
That's the point, is it not ? Obama didn't spend tens of billions militarising ICE as a private army, or disappear law abiding long term residents with families.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
It's nonsense. It's ahistorical bullshit. History is not there to provide work for actors but to accurately tell the story of the past, not revise it to conform to CurrentThink.
It's also especially stupid because there's an easy work around, if you think it's vitally important that actors get work: make it animated. Have the actors of whatever colour voice the Anglo-Saxons without pretending the Jutes came from Jamaica. History gets portrayed accurately, and the actors get roles regardless of skin colour.
Is it materially more ahistorical than casting actors who are more than five foot tall and have all their own teeth?
Not really - average height for an Anglo Saxon male was 5 foot 8 and teeth were generally in quite good condition (apart from being worn in the old) due to a lack of sugar.
Is it not possible for people of all political stripes and sensitivities to occasionally just say “yeh, that’s a bit of a shit decision” because really that is what this casting decision was, it doesn’t suddenly make you racist so don’t worry.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
It's nonsense. It's ahistorical bullshit. History is not there to provide work for actors but to accurately tell the story of the past, not revise it to conform to CurrentThink.
It's also especially stupid because there's an easy work around, if you think it's vitally important that actors get work: make it animated. Have the actors of whatever colour voice the Anglo-Saxons without pretending the Jutes came from Jamaica. History gets portrayed accurately, and the actors get roles regardless of skin colour.
But they're speaking modern English; not the very different languages that the Anglo-Saxons and Jutes spoke! What ahistorical nonsense!
Where this goes (or if it goes anywhere) will be a good test of the sustainability of Trump's haphazard tariff policies.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/27/trumps-tariffs-trade-war ... the Brics economies are now home to roughly 4.5 billion people – over 55% of the global population. The Brics grouping also accounts for an estimated 37.3% of global gross domestic product based on purchasing power parity.
The key question is whether tariffs and political demands that accompany them will force a change to the bloc’s character – until now an ideologically incoherent group containing countries deeply hostile to America such as China and countries traditionally friendly to the US such as India and Brazil.
Lula’s thinking seems to be evolving, finding himself riding a domestic wave of popular nationalism, fuelled by anger at Trump’s multiple interferences.
Until recently, Lula had been hoping Brazil’s special brand of multi-alignment could fly under Trump’s radar, said Oliver Stuenkel, associate professor at the school of international relations in São Paulo. Moreover, Lula for all his leftwing politics had been reluctant to allow China to turn Brics into an explicitly anti-western alliance, opposing the group’s expansion to include countries such as Iran.
But faced by Trump’s demands, Lula is having to recalibrate. “It has made Brazil more convinced of the need to diversify, to have Brics. It reinforces the need to find new friends and to have as many friends as possible,” Stuenkel said.
“Politically, diplomatically, I think the Chinese are big winners of these tariffs,” said Matias Spektor, professor of politics and international relations at Fundação Getulio Vargas in Brazil.
Lula has also taken up the cause of bypassing the dollar, a longstanding goal of China that in practice has achieved little in the past two decades. “Brazil cannot depend on the dollar and the Brics group needed to test whether it can have a currency for trade,” he said earlier this month.
“I am not obliged to purchase dollars to trade with countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, Sweden, the European Union, or China. We can use our own currencies. Why should I be tied to the dollar, a currency I do not control? It’s the United States that prints dollars,” Lula said...
It's actually now far from absurd that China/Brazil/India evolves into a new dominant trade block almost independent of the west.
I'd have predicted that the longstanding historical rivalry between China and India would make that almost impossible. Now I'm not so sure.
This is a notable statistic I wouldn't have predicted, either (if it's true).
..UBS BB analysts reckon it is even possible that three-quarters of Brazilian exports to the US could be redirected, an estimate that suggests the potential hit to economic growth will only be a maximum 0.6%...
Note he also mentions trading with the EU for which dollars aren't needed
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
It's nonsense. It's ahistorical bullshit. History is not there to provide work for actors but to accurately tell the story of the past, not revise it to conform to CurrentThink.
It's also especially stupid because there's an easy work around, if you think it's vitally important that actors get work: make it animated. Have the actors of whatever colour voice the Anglo-Saxons without pretending the Jutes came from Jamaica. History gets portrayed accurately, and the actors get roles regardless of skin colour.
But they're speaking modern English; not the very different languages that the Anglo-Saxons and Jutes spoke! What ahistorical nonsense!
Oh, you little tinker.
We live in an age where morons present racial propaganda claiming a white family famous for incest over generations produced a black African woman (Cleopatra) and the media regularly, and wrongly, portrays Hannibal Barca as a black African, as if the Sahara doesn't exist and North Africans = black.
Pretending that portraying history accurately is somehow a bad thing is a very odd take.
Oh you silly little tinker.
None of these stories portray history 'accurately'. And I'd argue that portraying Cleopatra as a white woman is as much nonsense as portraying her as a black woman. She's likely to be similar in skin tone to Mrs J: Mediterranean / olive skinned, and appearing darker in summer and lighter in winter. Casting Lizzie Taylor was 'ahistorical nonsense'.
But it really does not matter much as long as they have a good story with great dialogue, and can act.
Do you think, if they remake the epic series Shaka Zulu, that they should cast white actors to play his Impi? Think about it. White actors playing Zulu Impi - absolutely ridiculous isn’t it?
Kim Jong-un to send 100k troops to Ukraine as North Koreans 'queue up' to fight for Putin North Korean troops claim they're ready to jump into Putin's war in Ukraine at any moment, with a rough figure of 100,000 people being mentioned by military experts https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/kim-jong-un-send-100k-35796347
But the presence of western troops in Ukraine would be a "provocation".
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the wrong language for the time, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct and different haircuts for the time.
This is from a pro govt account, so using these quotes as implied criticism of Reform, but I am of the opinion that it is the bogus asylum seekers who are to blame for any genuine refugees being stranded in dangerous places, not a foreign government who is refusing to accept the premise that 50,000 young men dossing in France must be taken in as if we owe them a favour.
Cathy Newman, "How does this sound to someone from Afghanistan who is facing torture or even death?"
Gawain Towler, member of Reform UK board, "We are not responsible for the whole world's problems.. I don't care about the whole world"
Where this goes (or if it goes anywhere) will be a good test of the sustainability of Trump's haphazard tariff policies.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/27/trumps-tariffs-trade-war ... the Brics economies are now home to roughly 4.5 billion people – over 55% of the global population. The Brics grouping also accounts for an estimated 37.3% of global gross domestic product based on purchasing power parity.
The key question is whether tariffs and political demands that accompany them will force a change to the bloc’s character – until now an ideologically incoherent group containing countries deeply hostile to America such as China and countries traditionally friendly to the US such as India and Brazil.
Lula’s thinking seems to be evolving, finding himself riding a domestic wave of popular nationalism, fuelled by anger at Trump’s multiple interferences.
Until recently, Lula had been hoping Brazil’s special brand of multi-alignment could fly under Trump’s radar, said Oliver Stuenkel, associate professor at the school of international relations in São Paulo. Moreover, Lula for all his leftwing politics had been reluctant to allow China to turn Brics into an explicitly anti-western alliance, opposing the group’s expansion to include countries such as Iran.
But faced by Trump’s demands, Lula is having to recalibrate. “It has made Brazil more convinced of the need to diversify, to have Brics. It reinforces the need to find new friends and to have as many friends as possible,” Stuenkel said.
“Politically, diplomatically, I think the Chinese are big winners of these tariffs,” said Matias Spektor, professor of politics and international relations at Fundação Getulio Vargas in Brazil.
Lula has also taken up the cause of bypassing the dollar, a longstanding goal of China that in practice has achieved little in the past two decades. “Brazil cannot depend on the dollar and the Brics group needed to test whether it can have a currency for trade,” he said earlier this month.
“I am not obliged to purchase dollars to trade with countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, Sweden, the European Union, or China. We can use our own currencies. Why should I be tied to the dollar, a currency I do not control? It’s the United States that prints dollars,” Lula said...
It's actually now far from absurd that China/Brazil/India evolves into a new dominant trade block almost independent of the west.
I'd have predicted that the longstanding historical rivalry between China and India would make that almost impossible. Now I'm not so sure.
This is a notable statistic I wouldn't have predicted, either (if it's true).
..UBS BB analysts reckon it is even possible that three-quarters of Brazilian exports to the US could be redirected, an estimate that suggests the potential hit to economic growth will only be a maximum 0.6%...
Today's the day when Trump's 50% tariffs on India for buying Russian oil comes into effect. There's no sign of India backing down and promising to stop buying Russian, so Trump's threat has failed. It's going to hit Indian exports, and possibly push India closer to China. But maybe we'll see a TACO later today or in a couple of days.
The US needs to halt holiday and work visa issuance for Indians to the US if they really want to force India to retreat and threaten to revoke existing long term visas. That is the issue that moves the needle for India, not trade.
Well Lutnick's comments on H1-B visas are also major news in India today.
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported that Modi refused to take 4 calls from Trump in recent days. Modi was also annoyed by Trump claiming the credit for the ceasefire between India and Pakistan.
India and China actually have a lot of shared interests, and the US policy of having India as a key part of containing China could possibly be falling apart right now. This isn't great news for the West generally.
India cares about its interests, they were only ever going to contain China in terms of their own borders.
Trump doesn't care much about either other than reducing their exports to the US
Tories very nearly in 4th there. Labour close to the teens. And this is yougov
I expect Labour will slip into fourth place behind the Tories after the proper launch of the new party.
I actually doubt that. Potential Fruit&Nut voters have probably already left.
I think the Green vote will get a hammering.
There are probably quite a few Labour voters who are waiting to see what profile Your Party actually adopts - I'm one, and I'm chair of my CLP and an ex-MP for 13 years. If the new party is another quarrelsome left-wing splinter group, I'm not interested. If it's serious and mostly positive, then I'm a potential convert. A good deal depends on the decision on leadership. Collective leadership rather dodges the question and leaves the profile issue unresolved. Corbyn is much the best-known figure currently linked to it and I'd be happy with him but he has demonstrably an on-balance negative image, and he's getting on a bit (though I'm 75 so shouldn't talk). But an alternative figure is currently unknown. The best would probably be an attractive newish figure as leader, with Corbyn as chair, giving an element of continuity but also a fresh element.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the language, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
It would be interesting to have a white Mandela in a totally-reversed story, with a black government being the oppressors and whites being subject to a kind of Apartheid.
An interesting question - JezWeCan will find an audience.
The same on the far right. For all that RefUK is in the lead, the movement is fractured. We had the Big Speech yesterday and the Nigel couldn't help but attack Rupert Lowe. And up pops Ben Habib. Both are out there competing against the fukkers. Both have got the Lord Elon of Ket promoting them. Tommeh Two-Names as well.
It's entirely possible that Reform's groundswell of support ebbs away into splinter groups. As the racist right get emboldened we get demands for ever more hardcore solutions - Lowe wants to deport legal migrants, and we know that Sunil and TSE are on the radar of some of the furthest reaches of these "patriots"
If - and it is an IF - the far far right does fracture into Reform's vote, the beneficiaries will be the Tories and Labour. DYOR...
An astute post. The morons on the racist right will eventually start judging on skin colour and accents alone. Enjoyable as it might be to watch the Zia Yusufs bing chased out of town by the Rupert Lowes it might be that we have to let it get to that point before we really begin to understand the insidious nature of the Farage racism that we are seeing and in many cases supporting.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
It's nonsense. It's ahistorical bullshit. History is not there to provide work for actors but to accurately tell the story of the past, not revise it to conform to CurrentThink.
It's also especially stupid because there's an easy work around, if you think it's vitally important that actors get work: make it animated. Have the actors of whatever colour voice the Anglo-Saxons without pretending the Jutes came from Jamaica. History gets portrayed accurately, and the actors get roles regardless of skin colour.
But they're speaking modern English; not the very different languages that the Anglo-Saxons and Jutes spoke! What ahistorical nonsense!
Oh, you little tinker.
We live in an age where morons present racial propaganda claiming a white family famous for incest over generations produced a black African woman (Cleopatra) and the media regularly, and wrongly, portrays Hannibal Barca as a black African, as if the Sahara doesn't exist and North Africans = black.
Pretending that portraying history accurately is somehow a bad thing is a very odd take.
Oh you silly little tinker.
None of these stories portray history 'accurately'. And I'd argue that portraying Cleopatra as a white woman is as much nonsense as portraying her as a black woman. She's likely to be similar in skin tone to Mrs J: Mediterranean / olive skinned, and appearing darker in summer and lighter in winter. Casting Lizzie Taylor was 'ahistorical nonsense'.
But it really does not matter much as long as they have a good story with great dialogue, and can act.
I'd say one problem is with the one's who believe it, whether presented via the films, or political speeches.
And those willing to exploit such - which includes Farage, and the rest.
But there are plenty of people who end up with a cartoon version of history and politics. Have we forgotten Farage's Upper Second graduate of KCL sidekick?
And "5 flights a day" which would all have to be military because airlines / lease companies can't do ut.
We got civil operators to fly into Basra, Baghdad and Mosul on behalf of the UK government during the height of festivities there when there were SAMs and drones flying around. Shonky African operator + Russian crew + lots of money = nobody gives a fuck.
It's a lot simpler to do it with military aircraft and crews because they can be more easily coerced but the civil option isn't impossible even at the 5 flights/day scale.
Where does that sit on capacity?
Mr Farage doubled down on 500k-600k per annum deportations.
Is that doable on 5 flights a day, presumably on aircraft up to the size of a Globemaster or a Voyager, bearing in mind security personnel, load factor etc ?
500k a day is 1300 people a day so minimum 6 flights and probably more if you have any unwilling travellers...
And I don't see how the logistics works.
Also we don't exactly have 500k people arriving by boat so exactly who else is he planning to remove from the country...
Apparently they will be rounded up like in the USA with an ICE style unit .
I really do not see this happening
Stop the boats absolutely, but a US style purge is not acceptable
So how do you remove illegal immigrants who have melted into the ether if not with border force raids. They already happen fairly regularly at businesses suspected of using illegal labour, are you suggesting that we shouldn't be doing these either?
Weak willed liberals and their unending empathy for criminals and illegal immigrants are more dangerous for this country than the criminals and illegals.
I am not a weak willed liberal but what is going on in the US is unacceptable
By all means raid businesses suspected of employing illegal immigrants and I have no problem with everyone having a mandatory ID card
Can you tell us in detail exactly what's happening in the US that you wouldn't want to bring to the UK. As I see it they're using the same tactics as here, just more aggressively than we currently do and they're enforcing deportation rather than doing a catch and release as the UK does.
I think you've been watching too much nonsense on the news about the "horrors" of the US deportation programme when the reality is that even now Trump is still behind the deportation rate of Obama.
That's the point, is it not ? Obama didn't spend tens of billions militarising ICE as a private army, or disappear law abiding long term residents with families.
Obama didn't have to contend with sanctuary cities and those long term residents are still illegal, they don't have citizenship or legal right to remain in the US. Whether they've been there for 5 days or 5 years they should be removed. Obama also deported them too fwiw, he was known as the deporter in chief after all.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the language, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
It would be interesting to have a white Mandela in a totally-reversed story, with a black government being the oppressors and whites being subject to a kind of Apartheid.
I think Netflix might report you for a hate crime if you pitched that series, I'm only half joking.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the wrong language for the time, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
All historical movies and TV shows are inaccurate to a greater or lesser degree. Mary Queen of Scots spoke with a French accent but she’s invariably given a Scottish one. Jesus of Nazareth was considerably darker than Robert Powell or indeed most of his other European and American visual representations. Picking on the skin colour of actors in history pieces set in Europe is a bit of a double standard. Suspension of disbelief is necessary in any dramatic production.
Donald Trump claims UK in for 'bad awakening' thanks to Starmer's energy policy Trump's comments come despite the UK's reliance on fossil fuels being one of the factors driving up energy costs, with wind power being significantly cheaper than nuclear, gas or coal https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/donald-trump-claims-uk-bad-35798659
Ye Gods, They just censored my comment.
I saw this story about illegal parking and wondered if you were the new Leon: PB by day; Fleet Street by night:-
Highway Code rule break mistake 'most drivers' are making
Drivers throughout Britain are being alerted to an obscure Highway Code regulation that could see them slapped with a substantial penalty, purely based on how they position their vehicle overnight. The Highway Code states that it's against the law to park facing against the direction of traffic flow once darkness falls, except when positioned within a designated parking space.
The rationale centres on visibility concerns: car headlights are engineered to bounce light off a vehicle's rear, rather than its front end. When parked incorrectly, cars become significantly more difficult to detect, heightening the chances of a collision. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/uk-news/highway-code-rule-break-mistake-35794413
Shows the risk for Labour if they propose withdrawal from the ECHR rather than reform of it. With the LDs and Greens both in double figures they could lose more voters to them and Corbyn's new party by such a policy than they would regain from Reform.
Given Reform are already firmly for leaving the ECHR there is also no guarantee Badenoch would gain more voters from Reform than she would lose to the LDs from such a policy either
This is from a pro govt account, so using these quotes as implied criticism of Reform, but I am of the opinion that it is the bogus asylum seekers who are to blame for any genuine refugees being stranded in dangerous places, not a foreign government who is refusing to accept the premise that 50,000 young men dossing in France must be taken in as if we owe them a favour.
Cathy Newman, "How does this sound to someone from Afghanistan who is facing torture or even death?"
Gawain Towler, member of Reform UK board, "We are not responsible for the whole world's problems.. I don't care about the whole world"
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
Kim Jong-un to send 100k troops to Ukraine as North Koreans 'queue up' to fight for Putin North Korean troops claim they're ready to jump into Putin's war in Ukraine at any moment, with a rough figure of 100,000 people being mentioned by military experts https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/kim-jong-un-send-100k-35796347
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the language, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
It would be interesting to have a white Mandela in a totally-reversed story, with a black government being the oppressors and whites being subject to a kind of Apartheid.
It wouldn’t really, it would be lazy and hackneyed like all the student theatre directors who think they are being edgy by setting Macbeth in the Whitehouse or having King Lear change to Queen Lear.
The same story would emerge - it’s very grim for the oppressed, some people are strong and rise above and fight, some people are utter arseholes. Flipping the races re Mandela adds absolutely zero unless the audience is so dense they can’t already see the problem and if they are that dense they aren’t going to the theatre/cinema to watch “a clever perspective on apartheid, freaky Friday meets twelve years a slave”.
Tories very nearly in 4th there. Labour close to the teens. And this is yougov
I expect Labour will slip into fourth place behind the Tories after the proper launch of the new party.
I actually doubt that. Potential Fruit&Nut voters have probably already left.
I think the Green vote will get a hammering.
There are probably quite a few Labour voters who are waiting to see what profile Your Party actually adopts - I'm one, and I'm chair of my CLP and an ex-MP for 13 years. If the new party is another quarrelsome left-wing splinter group, I'm not interested. If it's serious and mostly positive, then I'm a potential convert. A good deal depends on the decision on leadership. Collective leadership rather dodges the question and leaves the profile issue unresolved. Corbyn is much the best-known figure currently linked to it and I'd be happy with him but he has demonstrably an on-balance negative image, and he's getting on a bit (though I'm 75 so shouldn't talk). But an alternative figure is currently unknown. The best would probably be an attractive newish figure as leader, with Corbyn as chair, giving an element of continuity but also a fresh element.
Yes, I think that's a good point. I suspect, judging on what we've seen so far, is that they'll be "another quarrelsome left-wing splinter group", with Sultana leading the party a bit too radical for many voters. Time will tell!
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the wrong language for the time, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
All historical movies and TV shows are inaccurate to a greater or lesser degree. Mary Queen of Scots spoke with a French accent but she’s invariably given a Scottish one. Jesus of Nazareth was considerably darker than Robert Powell or indeed most of his other European and American visual representations. Picking on the skin colour of actors in history pieces set in Europe is a bit of a double standard. Suspension of disbelief is necessary in any dramatic production.
I agree. It is only relevant if key to the plot. I don't care if someone is black or white, thin or fat, tall or short, when playing a roles,but there are obvious exceptions when it is key to plot:
A white Mandela, a thin Billy Bunter, a short Giant in the beanstalk.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the language, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
It would be interesting to have a white Mandela in a totally-reversed story, with a black government being the oppressors and whites being subject to a kind of Apartheid.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
It's nonsense. It's ahistorical bullshit. History is not there to provide work for actors but to accurately tell the story of the past, not revise it to conform to CurrentThink.
It's also especially stupid because there's an easy work around, if you think it's vitally important that actors get work: make it animated. Have the actors of whatever colour voice the Anglo-Saxons without pretending the Jutes came from Jamaica. History gets portrayed accurately, and the actors get roles regardless of skin colour.
Actually TV is there to (theoretically in the case of King & Conqueror) entertain and provide work for actors among others, its duty to history is pretty far down the list.
This is from a pro govt account, so using these quotes as implied criticism of Reform, but I am of the opinion that it is the bogus asylum seekers who are to blame for any genuine refugees being stranded in dangerous places, not a foreign government who is refusing to accept the premise that 50,000 young men dossing in France must be taken in as if we owe them a favour.
Cathy Newman, "How does this sound to someone from Afghanistan who is facing torture or even death?"
Gawain Towler, member of Reform UK board, "We are not responsible for the whole world's problems.. I don't care about the whole world"
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the wrong language for the time, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
All historical movies and TV shows are inaccurate to a greater or lesser degree. Mary Queen of Scots spoke with a French accent but she’s invariably given a Scottish one. Jesus of Nazareth was considerably darker than Robert Powell or indeed most of his other European and American visual representations. Picking on the skin colour of actors in history pieces set in Europe is a bit of a double standard. Suspension of disbelief is necessary in any dramatic production.
I agree. It is only relevant if key to the plot. I don't care if someone is black or white, thin or fat, tall or short, when playing a roles,but there are obvious exceptions when it is key to plot:
A white Mandela, a thin Billy Bunter, a short Giant in the beanstalk.
One only has to apply common sense.
I will try asking you as JJ didn’t answer at the time of writing - if the epic series “Shaka Zulu” is remade do you think it’s fine to cast white actors as Zulu Impi, or do you think it would be utterly ridiculous?
If you think it’s ok then please explain why, and why the Zulu nation shouldn’t be livid about it, if you think it would clearly be ridiculous then please explain why we also should accept colour blind casting in other situations.
This is from a pro govt account, so using these quotes as implied criticism of Reform, but I am of the opinion that it is the bogus asylum seekers who are to blame for any genuine refugees being stranded in dangerous places, not a foreign government who is refusing to accept the premise that 50,000 young men dossing in France must be taken in as if we owe them a favour.
Cathy Newman, "How does this sound to someone from Afghanistan who is facing torture or even death?"
Gawain Towler, member of Reform UK board, "We are not responsible for the whole world's problems.. I don't care about the whole world"
There’s a X account that digs in to who funds/who is behind other accounts, Charlotte Gill, and she is on Farrukhs case. Apparently he is in cahoots with , Campbell, Vorderman, etc to push stuff on social media
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
I'd tend agree with you, though I'm not entirely persuaded about title characters necessarily being "provocative".
I saw an all black production of The Importance of Being Ernest a couple of years ago. I anticipated it being a bit of a gimmick, but the cast was excellent, which is what mattered. One of the best productions I've seen.
Certainly the casting was making something of a point, but in the event, the point was that it was just very good.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the wrong language for the time, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
All historical movies and TV shows are inaccurate to a greater or lesser degree. Mary Queen of Scots spoke with a French accent but she’s invariably given a Scottish one. Jesus of Nazareth was considerably darker than Robert Powell or indeed most of his other European and American visual representations. Picking on the skin colour of actors in history pieces set in Europe is a bit of a double standard. Suspension of disbelief is necessary in any dramatic production.
I agree. It is only relevant if key to the plot. I don't care if someone is black or white, thin or fat, tall or short, when playing a roles,but there are obvious exceptions when it is key to plot:
A white Mandela, a thin Billy Bunter, a short Giant in the beanstalk.
One only has to apply common sense.
I will try asking you as JJ didn’t answer at the time of writing - if the epic series “Shaka Zulu” is remade do you think it’s fine to cast white actors as Zulu Impi, or do you think it would be utterly ridiculous?
If you think it’s ok then please explain why, and why the Zulu nation shouldn’t be livid about it, if you think it would clearly be ridiculous then please explain why we also should accept colour blind casting in other situations.
The racial dimension in South African history in "Shaka Zulu" still very much feeds through to the country's situation today. In comparison, any racial dimension in "King & Conqueror" has long ceased to be relevant. Thus, the two are not directly comparable.
Donald Trump claims UK in for 'bad awakening' thanks to Starmer's energy policy Trump's comments come despite the UK's reliance on fossil fuels being one of the factors driving up energy costs, with wind power being significantly cheaper than nuclear, gas or coal https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/donald-trump-claims-uk-bad-35798659
Ye Gods, They just censored my comment.
I saw this story about illegal parking and wondered if you were the new Leon: PB by day; Fleet Street by night:-
Highway Code rule break mistake 'most drivers' are making
Drivers throughout Britain are being alerted to an obscure Highway Code regulation that could see them slapped with a substantial penalty, purely based on how they position their vehicle overnight. The Highway Code states that it's against the law to park facing against the direction of traffic flow once darkness falls, except when positioned within a designated parking space.
The rationale centres on visibility concerns: car headlights are engineered to bounce light off a vehicle's rear, rather than its front end. When parked incorrectly, cars become significantly more difficult to detect, heightening the chances of a collision. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/uk-news/highway-code-rule-break-mistake-35794413
Nah. I'd get it right . This is just a tabloid brushing it's readers fur the wrong way for clicks. There are several there which are wrong, or unenforcible.
This is the piccie illustrating the story:
HWC rule 248 (having just read it) on night parking says that in a parking bay you can be facing either direction.
Donald Trump claims UK in for 'bad awakening' thanks to Starmer's energy policy Trump's comments come despite the UK's reliance on fossil fuels being one of the factors driving up energy costs, with wind power being significantly cheaper than nuclear, gas or coal https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/donald-trump-claims-uk-bad-35798659
Ye Gods, They just censored my comment.
I saw this story about illegal parking and wondered if you were the new Leon: PB by day; Fleet Street by night:-
Highway Code rule break mistake 'most drivers' are making
Drivers throughout Britain are being alerted to an obscure Highway Code regulation that could see them slapped with a substantial penalty, purely based on how they position their vehicle overnight. The Highway Code states that it's against the law to park facing against the direction of traffic flow once darkness falls, except when positioned within a designated parking space.
The rationale centres on visibility concerns: car headlights are engineered to bounce light off a vehicle's rear, rather than its front end. When parked incorrectly, cars become significantly more difficult to detect, heightening the chances of a collision. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/uk-news/highway-code-rule-break-mistake-35794413
I knew that BUT only because I am preparing to take my advanced driving test. One I didn't know and got my knuckles rapped on is going around mini roundabouts. Rule 188 states you must pass around them unless you are physically unable to do so. I do, but have been known to cut off a small section and got told off for doing so. It is an offence, although I was told you are unlikely to get pulled up for it by the Police unless you are involved in an accident.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
It's nonsense. It's ahistorical bullshit. History is not there to provide work for actors but to accurately tell the story of the past, not revise it to conform to CurrentThink.
It's also especially stupid because there's an easy work around, if you think it's vitally important that actors get work: make it animated. Have the actors of whatever colour voice the Anglo-Saxons without pretending the Jutes came from Jamaica. History gets portrayed accurately, and the actors get roles regardless of skin colour.
Actually TV is there to (theoretically in the case of King & Conqueror) entertain and provide work for actors among others, its duty to history is pretty far down the list.
TV is there to entertain. The work for actors is a side effect not a core goal.*
*This is going to become a very big deal over the next decade.
Donald Trump claims UK in for 'bad awakening' thanks to Starmer's energy policy Trump's comments come despite the UK's reliance on fossil fuels being one of the factors driving up energy costs, with wind power being significantly cheaper than nuclear, gas or coal https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/donald-trump-claims-uk-bad-35798659
Ye Gods, They just censored my comment.
I saw this story about illegal parking and wondered if you were the new Leon: PB by day; Fleet Street by night:-
Highway Code rule break mistake 'most drivers' are making
Drivers throughout Britain are being alerted to an obscure Highway Code regulation that could see them slapped with a substantial penalty, purely based on how they position their vehicle overnight. The Highway Code states that it's against the law to park facing against the direction of traffic flow once darkness falls, except when positioned within a designated parking space.
The rationale centres on visibility concerns: car headlights are engineered to bounce light off a vehicle's rear, rather than its front end. When parked incorrectly, cars become significantly more difficult to detect, heightening the chances of a collision. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/uk-news/highway-code-rule-break-mistake-35794413
I knew that BUT only because I am preparing to take my advanced driving test. One I didn't know and got my knuckles rapped on is going around mini roundabouts. Rule 188 states you must pass around them unless you are physically unable to do so. I do, but have been known to cut off a small section and got told off for doing so. It is an offence, although I was told you are unlikely to get pulled up for it by the Police unless you are involved in an accident.
Is the penalty greater if the roundabout has a flag on it?
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the language, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
It would be interesting to have a white Mandela in a totally-reversed story, with a black government being the oppressors and whites being subject to a kind of Apartheid.
Reminds me of this 1995 movie starring John Travolta and Harry Belafonte.
Donald Trump claims UK in for 'bad awakening' thanks to Starmer's energy policy Trump's comments come despite the UK's reliance on fossil fuels being one of the factors driving up energy costs, with wind power being significantly cheaper than nuclear, gas or coal https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/donald-trump-claims-uk-bad-35798659
Ye Gods, They just censored my comment.
I saw this story about illegal parking and wondered if you were the new Leon: PB by day; Fleet Street by night:-
Highway Code rule break mistake 'most drivers' are making
Drivers throughout Britain are being alerted to an obscure Highway Code regulation that could see them slapped with a substantial penalty, purely based on how they position their vehicle overnight. The Highway Code states that it's against the law to park facing against the direction of traffic flow once darkness falls, except when positioned within a designated parking space.
The rationale centres on visibility concerns: car headlights are engineered to bounce light off a vehicle's rear, rather than its front end. When parked incorrectly, cars become significantly more difficult to detect, heightening the chances of a collision. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/uk-news/highway-code-rule-break-mistake-35794413
I knew that BUT only because I am preparing to take my advanced driving test. One I didn't know and got my knuckles rapped on is going around mini roundabouts. Rule 188 states you must pass around them unless you are physically unable to do so. I do, but have been known to cut off a small section and got told off for doing so. It is an offence, although I was told you are unlikely to get pulled up for it by the Police unless you are involved in an accident.
I tend to use mini roundabouts more as a suggestion as to who has right of way.
I don't believe the "facing the direction of traffic" thing is enforced.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the wrong language for the time, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
All historical movies and TV shows are inaccurate to a greater or lesser degree. Mary Queen of Scots spoke with a French accent but she’s invariably given a Scottish one. Jesus of Nazareth was considerably darker than Robert Powell or indeed most of his other European and American visual representations. Picking on the skin colour of actors in history pieces set in Europe is a bit of a double standard. Suspension of disbelief is necessary in any dramatic production.
I agree. It is only relevant if key to the plot. I don't care if someone is black or white, thin or fat, tall or short, when playing a roles,but there are obvious exceptions when it is key to plot:
A white Mandela, a thin Billy Bunter, a short Giant in the beanstalk.
One only has to apply common sense.
Gerald Campion had a bit of help from the costume department, being a svelte 11st 2lbs in his cotton socks. Of greater relevance, Hurree Jamset Ram Singh was played by six different white actors:
And "5 flights a day" which would all have to be military because airlines / lease companies can't do ut.
We got civil operators to fly into Basra, Baghdad and Mosul on behalf of the UK government during the height of festivities there when there were SAMs and drones flying around. Shonky African operator + Russian crew + lots of money = nobody gives a fuck.
It's a lot simpler to do it with military aircraft and crews because they can be more easily coerced but the civil option isn't impossible even at the 5 flights/day scale.
Where does that sit on capacity?
Mr Farage doubled down on 500k-600k per annum deportations.
Is that doable on 5 flights a day, presumably on aircraft up to the size of a Globemaster or a Voyager, bearing in mind security personnel, load factor etc ?
500k a day is 1300 people a day so minimum 6 flights and probably more if you have any unwilling travellers...
And I don't see how the logistics works.
Also we don't exactly have 500k people arriving by boat so exactly who else is he planning to remove from the country...
Apparently they will be rounded up like in the USA with an ICE style unit .
I really do not see this happening
Stop the boats absolutely, but a US style purge is not acceptable
So how do you remove illegal immigrants who have melted into the ether if not with border force raids. They already happen fairly regularly at businesses suspected of using illegal labour, are you suggesting that we shouldn't be doing these either?
Weak willed liberals and their unending empathy for criminals and illegal immigrants are more dangerous for this country than the criminals and illegals.
I am not a weak willed liberal but what is going on in the US is unacceptable
By all means raid businesses suspected of employing illegal immigrants and I have no problem with everyone having a mandatory ID card
Can you tell us in detail exactly what's happening in the US that you wouldn't want to bring to the UK. As I see it they're using the same tactics as here, just more aggressively than we currently do and they're enforcing deportation rather than doing a catch and release as the UK does.
I think you've been watching too much nonsense on the news about the "horrors" of the US deportation programme when the reality is that even now Trump is still behind the deportation rate of Obama.
That's the point, is it not ? Obama didn't spend tens of billions militarising ICE as a private army, or disappear law abiding long term residents with families.
Obama didn't have to contend with sanctuary cities and those long term residents are still illegal, they don't have citizenship or legal right to remain in the US. Whether they've been there for 5 days or 5 years they should be removed. Obama also deported them too fwiw, he was known as the deporter in chief after all.
The polling suggests quite a large majority in the US disagrees with you on that.
Obama spent a good deal of his presidency trying to broker bipartisan agreement on regularising the law abiding, Legislation like the Dream Act has been around for well over two decades: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act
And the large majority of those he deported were recent arrivals across the southern border.
Donald Trump claims UK in for 'bad awakening' thanks to Starmer's energy policy Trump's comments come despite the UK's reliance on fossil fuels being one of the factors driving up energy costs, with wind power being significantly cheaper than nuclear, gas or coal https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/donald-trump-claims-uk-bad-35798659
Ye Gods, They just censored my comment.
I saw this story about illegal parking and wondered if you were the new Leon: PB by day; Fleet Street by night:-
Highway Code rule break mistake 'most drivers' are making
Drivers throughout Britain are being alerted to an obscure Highway Code regulation that could see them slapped with a substantial penalty, purely based on how they position their vehicle overnight. The Highway Code states that it's against the law to park facing against the direction of traffic flow once darkness falls, except when positioned within a designated parking space.
The rationale centres on visibility concerns: car headlights are engineered to bounce light off a vehicle's rear, rather than its front end. When parked incorrectly, cars become significantly more difficult to detect, heightening the chances of a collision. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/uk-news/highway-code-rule-break-mistake-35794413
Nah. I'd get it right . This is just a tabloid brushing it's readers fur the wrong way for clicks. There are several there which are wrong, or unenforcible.
This is the piccie illustrating the story:
HWC rule 248 (having just read it) on night parking says that in a parking bay you can be facing either direction.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the wrong language for the time, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
All historical movies and TV shows are inaccurate to a greater or lesser degree. Mary Queen of Scots spoke with a French accent but she’s invariably given a Scottish one. Jesus of Nazareth was considerably darker than Robert Powell or indeed most of his other European and American visual representations. Picking on the skin colour of actors in history pieces set in Europe is a bit of a double standard. Suspension of disbelief is necessary in any dramatic production.
I agree. It is only relevant if key to the plot. I don't care if someone is black or white, thin or fat, tall or short, when playing a roles,but there are obvious exceptions when it is key to plot:
A white Mandela, a thin Billy Bunter, a short Giant in the beanstalk.
One only has to apply common sense.
The Tom Cruise Reacher films flopped cos the character (a giant) can't be played by a midget
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the wrong language for the time, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
All historical movies and TV shows are inaccurate to a greater or lesser degree. Mary Queen of Scots spoke with a French accent but she’s invariably given a Scottish one. Jesus of Nazareth was considerably darker than Robert Powell or indeed most of his other European and American visual representations. Picking on the skin colour of actors in history pieces set in Europe is a bit of a double standard. Suspension of disbelief is necessary in any dramatic production.
I agree. It is only relevant if key to the plot. I don't care if someone is black or white, thin or fat, tall or short, when playing a roles,but there are obvious exceptions when it is key to plot:
A white Mandela, a thin Billy Bunter, a short Giant in the beanstalk.
One only has to apply common sense.
I will try asking you as JJ didn’t answer at the time of writing - if the epic series “Shaka Zulu” is remade do you think it’s fine to cast white actors as Zulu Impi, or do you think it would be utterly ridiculous?
If you think it’s ok then please explain why, and why the Zulu nation shouldn’t be livid about it, if you think it would clearly be ridiculous then please explain why we also should accept colour blind casting in other situations.
I think it would be ridiculous. See the reasoning I gave above as why and how it is appropriate sometimes and not other times.
Obviously in making statements like I and @isam made you have to accept there will be cases where it is difficult to judge whether it is acceptable or not. I will admit I still really struggle with the actor being the wrong colour for the time and place of the plot even if only in a subsidiary role, but I perceive that to be my problem, because I don't worry about other inaccuracies.
If the government falls, then Macron has to try and stitch together yet another government from the wreckage (surely getting very difficult indeed) or calling fresh elections as I believe he is now able to do as enough time has passed since the last ones.
If that election produces yet further deadlock, or a RN government, I wonder what the chances are of Macron resigning this year. I only posit this as a question to the room - I am no significant expert on the French constitution. One thing that could be of tactical benefit is that MLP is still barred from running, I believe - and if he resigns I believe a new presidential election has to be held straight away. I am not sure if MLP could fast track her appeal in that time. That said, Bardella seems to be holding up ok in polling too.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the wrong language for the time, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
All historical movies and TV shows are inaccurate to a greater or lesser degree. Mary Queen of Scots spoke with a French accent but she’s invariably given a Scottish one. Jesus of Nazareth was considerably darker than Robert Powell or indeed most of his other European and American visual representations. Picking on the skin colour of actors in history pieces set in Europe is a bit of a double standard. Suspension of disbelief is necessary in any dramatic production.
I agree. It is only relevant if key to the plot. I don't care if someone is black or white, thin or fat, tall or short, when playing a roles,but there are obvious exceptions when it is key to plot:
A white Mandela, a thin Billy Bunter, a short Giant in the beanstalk.
One only has to apply common sense.
I will try asking you as JJ didn’t answer at the time of writing - if the epic series “Shaka Zulu” is remade do you think it’s fine to cast white actors as Zulu Impi, or do you think it would be utterly ridiculous?
If you think it’s ok then please explain why, and why the Zulu nation shouldn’t be livid about it, if you think it would clearly be ridiculous then please explain why we also should accept colour blind casting in other situations.
The racial dimension in South African history in "Shaka Zulu" still very much feeds through to the country's situation today. In comparison, any racial dimension in "King & Conqueror" has long ceased to be relevant. Thus, the two are not directly comparable.
You do realise Shaka Zulu is about the rise of the Zulu against other black South African tribes of the time, pre Anglo-Zulu war and large scale white settlement and so the racial black/white dimension to the story isn’t relevant to the country’s situation today?
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the wrong language for the time, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
All historical movies and TV shows are inaccurate to a greater or lesser degree. Mary Queen of Scots spoke with a French accent but she’s invariably given a Scottish one. Jesus of Nazareth was considerably darker than Robert Powell or indeed most of his other European and American visual representations. Picking on the skin colour of actors in history pieces set in Europe is a bit of a double standard. Suspension of disbelief is necessary in any dramatic production.
Funny thing about that example is that giving Marie Stuart a French accent would help drive home the degree of the split between her and very many Scots. A chance being missed there. But perhaps the emphasis in many productions is on Elizabeth Tudor, so it is thought that having MS a la francaise would confuse the viewer.
‘The People’s Party’ sounds too Blairite; ‘The People’s Princess’ & ‘The People’s Vote’ were the kind of Blair/Campbell/Starmer propaganda that I’d like to think Jezza would have nothing to do with
I also think 'Your Party' is a very good name, but we appear to be in a minority. It sounds like it belongs to the voters and doesn't necessarily have far left connotations like some of the others.
I agree . The People’s party seems a bit meh and Your seems more likely to appeal to a broader range of voters .
Surely any new self-respecting left-wing political party has to have a name which includes some combination of the following: Socialist, Peoples, Marxist, Progressive, Popular, Workers, Liberation, Leninist, and Collective. And of course there's always "Republican".
The Popular Progressive Democratic Marxist-Leninist People’s Revolutionary Front For The Liberation Of The Workers?
But hasn't left wing politics largely abandoned actual workers now?
The ultra left were alway in favour of theoretical workers. Hunky men, stripped to the waist, ladling steel or scything crops. Or women in headscarves in a factory.
Actual workers are problematic and often need shooting.
Donald Trump claims UK in for 'bad awakening' thanks to Starmer's energy policy Trump's comments come despite the UK's reliance on fossil fuels being one of the factors driving up energy costs, with wind power being significantly cheaper than nuclear, gas or coal https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/donald-trump-claims-uk-bad-35798659
Ye Gods, They just censored my comment.
I saw this story about illegal parking and wondered if you were the new Leon: PB by day; Fleet Street by night:-
Highway Code rule break mistake 'most drivers' are making
Drivers throughout Britain are being alerted to an obscure Highway Code regulation that could see them slapped with a substantial penalty, purely based on how they position their vehicle overnight. The Highway Code states that it's against the law to park facing against the direction of traffic flow once darkness falls, except when positioned within a designated parking space.
The rationale centres on visibility concerns: car headlights are engineered to bounce light off a vehicle's rear, rather than its front end. When parked incorrectly, cars become significantly more difficult to detect, heightening the chances of a collision. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/uk-news/highway-code-rule-break-mistake-35794413
I knew that BUT only because I am preparing to take my advanced driving test. One I didn't know and got my knuckles rapped on is going around mini roundabouts. Rule 188 states you must pass around them unless you are physically unable to do so. I do, but have been known to cut off a small section and got told off for doing so. It is an offence, although I was told you are unlikely to get pulled up for it by the Police unless you are involved in an accident.
I tend to use mini roundabouts more as a suggestion as to who has right of way.
I don't believe the "facing the direction of traffic" thing is enforced.
The problem with mini-roundabouts is that if you go straight across, and a car coming from the left believes you will follow the rules and go round, then you can reach the same spot at the same time and hold everyone else up while you swap insurance details.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the wrong language for the time, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
All historical movies and TV shows are inaccurate to a greater or lesser degree. Mary Queen of Scots spoke with a French accent but she’s invariably given a Scottish one. Jesus of Nazareth was considerably darker than Robert Powell or indeed most of his other European and American visual representations. Picking on the skin colour of actors in history pieces set in Europe is a bit of a double standard. Suspension of disbelief is necessary in any dramatic production.
I agree. It is only relevant if key to the plot. I don't care if someone is black or white, thin or fat, tall or short, when playing a roles,but there are obvious exceptions when it is key to plot:
A white Mandela, a thin Billy Bunter, a short Giant in the beanstalk.
One only has to apply common sense.
I will try asking you as JJ didn’t answer at the time of writing - if the epic series “Shaka Zulu” is remade do you think it’s fine to cast white actors as Zulu Impi, or do you think it would be utterly ridiculous?
If you think it’s ok then please explain why, and why the Zulu nation shouldn’t be livid about it, if you think it would clearly be ridiculous then please explain why we also should accept colour blind casting in other situations.
The racial dimension in South African history in "Shaka Zulu" still very much feeds through to the country's situation today. In comparison, any racial dimension in "King & Conqueror" has long ceased to be relevant. Thus, the two are not directly comparable.
You do realise Shaka Zulu is about the rise of the Zulu against other black South African tribes of the time, pre Anglo-Zulu war and large scale white settlement and so the racial black/white dimension to the story isn’t relevant to the country’s situation today?
Also, we continue to hear a great deal about the superiority of the Normans, thinly disguised as the aristocracy and royalty.
And "5 flights a day" which would all have to be military because airlines / lease companies can't do ut.
We got civil operators to fly into Basra, Baghdad and Mosul on behalf of the UK government during the height of festivities there when there were SAMs and drones flying around. Shonky African operator + Russian crew + lots of money = nobody gives a fuck.
It's a lot simpler to do it with military aircraft and crews because they can be more easily coerced but the civil option isn't impossible even at the 5 flights/day scale.
Where does that sit on capacity?
Mr Farage doubled down on 500k-600k per annum deportations.
Is that doable on 5 flights a day, presumably on aircraft up to the size of a Globemaster or a Voyager, bearing in mind security personnel, load factor etc ?
500k a day is 1300 people a day so minimum 6 flights and probably more if you have any unwilling travellers...
And I don't see how the logistics works.
Also we don't exactly have 500k people arriving by boat so exactly who else is he planning to remove from the country...
Apparently they will be rounded up like in the USA with an ICE style unit .
I really do not see this happening
Stop the boats absolutely, but a US style purge is not acceptable
So how do you remove illegal immigrants who have melted into the ether if not with border force raids. They already happen fairly regularly at businesses suspected of using illegal labour, are you suggesting that we shouldn't be doing these either?
Weak willed liberals and their unending empathy for criminals and illegal immigrants are more dangerous for this country than the criminals and illegals.
I am not a weak willed liberal but what is going on in the US is unacceptable
By all means raid businesses suspected of employing illegal immigrants and I have no problem with everyone having a mandatory ID card
Can you tell us in detail exactly what's happening in the US that you wouldn't want to bring to the UK. As I see it they're using the same tactics as here, just more aggressively than we currently do and they're enforcing deportation rather than doing a catch and release as the UK does.
I think you've been watching too much nonsense on the news about the "horrors" of the US deportation programme when the reality is that even now Trump is still behind the deportation rate of Obama.
That's the point, is it not ? Obama didn't spend tens of billions militarising ICE as a private army, or disappear law abiding long term residents with families.
Obama didn't have to contend with sanctuary cities and those long term residents are still illegal, they don't have citizenship or legal right to remain in the US. Whether they've been there for 5 days or 5 years they should be removed. Obama also deported them too fwiw, he was known as the deporter in chief after all.
The polling suggests quite a large majority in the US disagrees with you on that.
Obama spent a good deal of his presidency trying to broker bipartisan agreement on regularising the law abiding, Legislation like the Dream Act has been around for well over two decades: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act
And the large majority of those he deported were recent arrivals across the southern border.
And yet people voted for Trump's deportation plan. People like to say things to pollsters that they don't believe and then vote for the things they do believe.
And "5 flights a day" which would all have to be military because airlines / lease companies can't do ut.
We got civil operators to fly into Basra, Baghdad and Mosul on behalf of the UK government during the height of festivities there when there were SAMs and drones flying around. Shonky African operator + Russian crew + lots of money = nobody gives a fuck.
It's a lot simpler to do it with military aircraft and crews because they can be more easily coerced but the civil option isn't impossible even at the 5 flights/day scale.
Where does that sit on capacity?
Mr Farage doubled down on 500k-600k per annum deportations.
Is that doable on 5 flights a day, presumably on aircraft up to the size of a Globemaster or a Voyager, bearing in mind security personnel, load factor etc ?
500k a day is 1300 people a day so minimum 6 flights and probably more if you have any unwilling travellers...
And I don't see how the logistics works.
Also we don't exactly have 500k people arriving by boat so exactly who else is he planning to remove from the country...
Apparently they will be rounded up like in the USA with an ICE style unit .
I really do not see this happening
Stop the boats absolutely, but a US style purge is not acceptable
So how do you remove illegal immigrants who have melted into the ether if not with border force raids. They already happen fairly regularly at businesses suspected of using illegal labour, are you suggesting that we shouldn't be doing these either?
Weak willed liberals and their unending empathy for criminals and illegal immigrants are more dangerous for this country than the criminals and illegals.
I am not a weak willed liberal but what is going on in the US is unacceptable
By all means raid businesses suspected of employing illegal immigrants and I have no problem with everyone having a mandatory ID card
Can you tell us in detail exactly what's happening in the US that you wouldn't want to bring to the UK. As I see it they're using the same tactics as here, just more aggressively than we currently do and they're enforcing deportation rather than doing a catch and release as the UK does.
I think you've been watching too much nonsense on the news about the "horrors" of the US deportation programme when the reality is that even now Trump is still behind the deportation rate of Obama.
That's the point, is it not ? Obama didn't spend tens of billions militarising ICE as a private army, or disappear law abiding long term residents with families.
Obama didn't have to contend with sanctuary cities and those long term residents are still illegal, they don't have citizenship or legal right to remain in the US. Whether they've been there for 5 days or 5 years they should be removed. Obama also deported them too fwiw, he was known as the deporter in chief after all.
There is an alternative argument, which for some value of X, if you have lived in the country for X years, and the authorities are in full knowledge of your status, and have taken no action, then they have acquiesced in your residency. Squatters rights, if you like.
Donald Trump claims UK in for 'bad awakening' thanks to Starmer's energy policy Trump's comments come despite the UK's reliance on fossil fuels being one of the factors driving up energy costs, with wind power being significantly cheaper than nuclear, gas or coal https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/donald-trump-claims-uk-bad-35798659
Ye Gods, They just censored my comment.
I saw this story about illegal parking and wondered if you were the new Leon: PB by day; Fleet Street by night:-
Highway Code rule break mistake 'most drivers' are making
Drivers throughout Britain are being alerted to an obscure Highway Code regulation that could see them slapped with a substantial penalty, purely based on how they position their vehicle overnight. The Highway Code states that it's against the law to park facing against the direction of traffic flow once darkness falls, except when positioned within a designated parking space.
The rationale centres on visibility concerns: car headlights are engineered to bounce light off a vehicle's rear, rather than its front end. When parked incorrectly, cars become significantly more difficult to detect, heightening the chances of a collision. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/uk-news/highway-code-rule-break-mistake-35794413
I knew that BUT only because I am preparing to take my advanced driving test. One I didn't know and got my knuckles rapped on is going around mini roundabouts. Rule 188 states you must pass around them unless you are physically unable to do so. I do, but have been known to cut off a small section and got told off for doing so. It is an offence, although I was told you are unlikely to get pulled up for it by the Police unless you are involved in an accident.
I tend to use mini roundabouts more as a suggestion as to who has right of way.
I don't believe the "facing the direction of traffic" thing is enforced.
Not enforced normally, but if you have an accident on a mini roundabout while doing it then a fine and penalty points will be coming your way and that was from the traffic cop sitting next to me in the car at the time.
And "5 flights a day" which would all have to be military because airlines / lease companies can't do ut.
We got civil operators to fly into Basra, Baghdad and Mosul on behalf of the UK government during the height of festivities there when there were SAMs and drones flying around. Shonky African operator + Russian crew + lots of money = nobody gives a fuck.
It's a lot simpler to do it with military aircraft and crews because they can be more easily coerced but the civil option isn't impossible even at the 5 flights/day scale.
Where does that sit on capacity?
Mr Farage doubled down on 500k-600k per annum deportations.
Is that doable on 5 flights a day, presumably on aircraft up to the size of a Globemaster or a Voyager, bearing in mind security personnel, load factor etc ?
500k a day is 1300 people a day so minimum 6 flights and probably more if you have any unwilling travellers...
And I don't see how the logistics works.
Also we don't exactly have 500k people arriving by boat so exactly who else is he planning to remove from the country...
Apparently they will be rounded up like in the USA with an ICE style unit .
I really do not see this happening
Stop the boats absolutely, but a US style purge is not acceptable
So how do you remove illegal immigrants who have melted into the ether if not with border force raids. They already happen fairly regularly at businesses suspected of using illegal labour, are you suggesting that we shouldn't be doing these either?
Weak willed liberals and their unending empathy for criminals and illegal immigrants are more dangerous for this country than the criminals and illegals.
I am not a weak willed liberal but what is going on in the US is unacceptable
By all means raid businesses suspected of employing illegal immigrants and I have no problem with everyone having a mandatory ID card
Can you tell us in detail exactly what's happening in the US that you wouldn't want to bring to the UK. As I see it they're using the same tactics as here, just more aggressively than we currently do and they're enforcing deportation rather than doing a catch and release as the UK does.
I think you've been watching too much nonsense on the news about the "horrors" of the US deportation programme when the reality is that even now Trump is still behind the deportation rate of Obama.
That's the point, is it not ? Obama didn't spend tens of billions militarising ICE as a private army, or disappear law abiding long term residents with families.
Obama didn't have to contend with sanctuary cities and those long term residents are still illegal, they don't have citizenship or legal right to remain in the US. Whether they've been there for 5 days or 5 years they should be removed. Obama also deported them too fwiw, he was known as the deporter in chief after all.
There is an alternative argument, which for some value of X, if you have lived in the country for X years, and the authorities are in full knowledge of your status, and have taken no action, then they have acquiesced in your residency. Squatters rights, if you like.
Which is meaningless when a new administration arrives and rips up that idea. See Trump. The only thing that matters is citizenship or legally recognised leave to remain. People who don't have either of those are legitimate targets for deportation.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
I'd tend agree with you, though I'm not entirely persuaded about title characters necessarily being "provocative".
I saw an all black production of The Importance of Being Ernest a couple of years ago. I anticipated it being a bit of a gimmick, but the cast was excellent, which is what mattered. One of the best productions I've seen.
Certainly the casting was making something of a point, but in the event, the point was that it was just very good.
I think an all black cast of any play would be no problem at all, the provocation, if there is any, is when a black person plays Queen Victoria for instance. That seems like a bit of a statement. But does it really matter? I’m not as sure as I was
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the wrong language for the time, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
All historical movies and TV shows are inaccurate to a greater or lesser degree. Mary Queen of Scots spoke with a French accent but she’s invariably given a Scottish one. Jesus of Nazareth was considerably darker than Robert Powell or indeed most of his other European and American visual representations. Picking on the skin colour of actors in history pieces set in Europe is a bit of a double standard. Suspension of disbelief is necessary in any dramatic production.
I agree. It is only relevant if key to the plot. I don't care if someone is black or white, thin or fat, tall or short, when playing a roles,but there are obvious exceptions when it is key to plot:
A white Mandela, a thin Billy Bunter, a short Giant in the beanstalk.
One only has to apply common sense.
I will try asking you as JJ didn’t answer at the time of writing - if the epic series “Shaka Zulu” is remade do you think it’s fine to cast white actors as Zulu Impi, or do you think it would be utterly ridiculous?
If you think it’s ok then please explain why, and why the Zulu nation shouldn’t be livid about it, if you think it would clearly be ridiculous then please explain why we also should accept colour blind casting in other situations.
The racial dimension in South African history in "Shaka Zulu" still very much feeds through to the country's situation today. In comparison, any racial dimension in "King & Conqueror" has long ceased to be relevant. Thus, the two are not directly comparable.
You do realise Shaka Zulu is about the rise of the Zulu against other black South African tribes of the time, pre Anglo-Zulu war and large scale white settlement and so the racial black/white dimension to the story isn’t relevant to the country’s situation today?
"Shaka Zulu" covers interactions with the European colonists as well. Key characters are white (Francis Farewell and Henry Fynn). Here is Wikipedia's summary of the first episode's plot: "Commencing in 1823, it introduces the main characters, including Shaka, Lieutenant Francis Farewell and Dr. Henry Fynn, against a background of increasing fear of a Zulu attack on the Cape Colony." The show covers the period 1823-8, which is before the Anglo-Zulu war but well after large scale white settlement.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the language, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
It would be interesting to have a white Mandela in a totally-reversed story, with a black government being the oppressors and whites being subject to a kind of Apartheid.
Donald Trump claims UK in for 'bad awakening' thanks to Starmer's energy policy Trump's comments come despite the UK's reliance on fossil fuels being one of the factors driving up energy costs, with wind power being significantly cheaper than nuclear, gas or coal https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/donald-trump-claims-uk-bad-35798659
Ye Gods, They just censored my comment.
I saw this story about illegal parking and wondered if you were the new Leon: PB by day; Fleet Street by night:-
Highway Code rule break mistake 'most drivers' are making
Drivers throughout Britain are being alerted to an obscure Highway Code regulation that could see them slapped with a substantial penalty, purely based on how they position their vehicle overnight. The Highway Code states that it's against the law to park facing against the direction of traffic flow once darkness falls, except when positioned within a designated parking space.
The rationale centres on visibility concerns: car headlights are engineered to bounce light off a vehicle's rear, rather than its front end. When parked incorrectly, cars become significantly more difficult to detect, heightening the chances of a collision. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/uk-news/highway-code-rule-break-mistake-35794413
I knew that BUT only because I am preparing to take my advanced driving test. One I didn't know and got my knuckles rapped on is going around mini roundabouts. Rule 188 states you must pass around them unless you are physically unable to do so. I do, but have been known to cut off a small section and got told off for doing so. It is an offence, although I was told you are unlikely to get pulled up for it by the Police unless you are involved in an accident.
I tend to use mini roundabouts more as a suggestion as to who has right of way.
I don't believe the "facing the direction of traffic" thing is enforced.
Not enforced normally, but if you have an accident on a mini roundabout while doing it then a fine and penalty points will be coming your way and that was from the traffic cop sitting next to me in the car at the time.
If there are other cars you give way as normal, rather than try to cut across before the car on your right
And "5 flights a day" which would all have to be military because airlines / lease companies can't do ut.
We got civil operators to fly into Basra, Baghdad and Mosul on behalf of the UK government during the height of festivities there when there were SAMs and drones flying around. Shonky African operator + Russian crew + lots of money = nobody gives a fuck.
It's a lot simpler to do it with military aircraft and crews because they can be more easily coerced but the civil option isn't impossible even at the 5 flights/day scale.
Where does that sit on capacity?
Mr Farage doubled down on 500k-600k per annum deportations.
Is that doable on 5 flights a day, presumably on aircraft up to the size of a Globemaster or a Voyager, bearing in mind security personnel, load factor etc ?
500k a day is 1300 people a day so minimum 6 flights and probably more if you have any unwilling travellers...
And I don't see how the logistics works.
Also we don't exactly have 500k people arriving by boat so exactly who else is he planning to remove from the country...
Apparently they will be rounded up like in the USA with an ICE style unit .
I really do not see this happening
Stop the boats absolutely, but a US style purge is not acceptable
So how do you remove illegal immigrants who have melted into the ether if not with border force raids. They already happen fairly regularly at businesses suspected of using illegal labour, are you suggesting that we shouldn't be doing these either?
Weak willed liberals and their unending empathy for criminals and illegal immigrants are more dangerous for this country than the criminals and illegals.
I am not a weak willed liberal but what is going on in the US is unacceptable
By all means raid businesses suspected of employing illegal immigrants and I have no problem with everyone having a mandatory ID card
Can you tell us in detail exactly what's happening in the US that you wouldn't want to bring to the UK. As I see it they're using the same tactics as here, just more aggressively than we currently do and they're enforcing deportation rather than doing a catch and release as the UK does.
I think you've been watching too much nonsense on the news about the "horrors" of the US deportation programme when the reality is that even now Trump is still behind the deportation rate of Obama.
That's the point, is it not ? Obama didn't spend tens of billions militarising ICE as a private army, or disappear law abiding long term residents with families.
Obama didn't have to contend with sanctuary cities and those long term residents are still illegal, they don't have citizenship or legal right to remain in the US. Whether they've been there for 5 days or 5 years they should be removed. Obama also deported them too fwiw, he was known as the deporter in chief after all.
There is an alternative argument, which for some value of X, if you have lived in the country for X years, and the authorities are in full knowledge of your status, and have taken no action, then they have acquiesced in your residency. Squatters rights, if you like.
Which is meaningless when a new administration arrives and rips up that idea. See Trump. The only thing that matters is citizenship or legally recognised leave to remain. People who don't have either of those are legitimate targets for deportation.
Birthright citizenship complicates this picture though, no?
This is from a pro govt account, so using these quotes as implied criticism of Reform, but I am of the opinion that it is the bogus asylum seekers who are to blame for any genuine refugees being stranded in dangerous places, not a foreign government who is refusing to accept the premise that 50,000 young men dossing in France must be taken in as if we owe them a favour.
Cathy Newman, "How does this sound to someone from Afghanistan who is facing torture or even death?"
Gawain Towler, member of Reform UK board, "We are not responsible for the whole world's problems.. I don't care about the whole world"
We do have a responsibility to those Afghans who helped western forces though
Western forces were there to help them. They had 20 years to be ready to stand on their own two feet. It's not our fault they didn't.
It seems that the only reason British forces were in Afghanistan was to give ever more Afghans a 'right' to move to Britain.
The Afghans are a nation of parasites, to whom this country owes nothing.
Edit: The Taliban weren't parasites - horrible as their ideology is, they were at least willing to fight for it.
Calling a whole nation "parasites" is racism.
To then suggest that the only good Afghans were the Taliban is ridiculous.
Judge peoples on their actions.
The number of Afghans who were actually willing to fight the Taliban in 2021 turned out to be approximately zero.
That includes all those Afghan 'special forces', who must have numbered in the tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands.
So, throughout the two decades of western involvement in Afghanistan the people were only supportive in as far as it benefit themselves - perhaps a reasonable attitude but also one which other countries should now reciprocate towards them.
And as it is in no way in Britain's interest to allow Afghans to migrate here we should not have accepted any asylum seekers from there.
As for the Taliban, a horrible ideology but at least they're clear in their intentions.
Jack Straw is the latest labour voice to want to leave the ECHR
If Labour left the ECHR they’d be lucky to poll double digits.
I disagree. As long as they came up with a just and assertive alternative I think most current Labour voters would be happy with it - "direct entry of 30,000 pre-approved asylum seekers per year from *list of nations*, small boats = automatic disqualification". I don't see how anyone except people on the extreme left could disagree with that.
Much better would be to actually reform the thing to reflect 21st century reality. As one of the main original architects we just need to get on with it.
(I do note that the ECHR has 2:1 support across the electorate, so it would have to be handled carefully).
Getting reform of the ECHR through is basically impossible. The better bet is to form a new version alongside other nations and have them leave the old one behind. A version that doesn't allow convicted criminals to exploit it to evade deportation etc...
Even the civil servants at the Council of Europe are keen for a change - they appreciate that it's unsustainable. Mahmood has made some noises in that direction, as have other politicians from other countries.
It's definitely possible but I think we need to put a 12-month deadline otherwise it will take too long. Should've changed in 2021.
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
If you can have actors as black Anglo Saxons you can have an actor as a white Mandela
A nicely thoughtful post there by @isam. I need to watch this as it is the 2nd one of yours I have liked today.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the wrong language for the time, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct haircuts for the time.
All historical movies and TV shows are inaccurate to a greater or lesser degree. Mary Queen of Scots spoke with a French accent but she’s invariably given a Scottish one. Jesus of Nazareth was considerably darker than Robert Powell or indeed most of his other European and American visual representations. Picking on the skin colour of actors in history pieces set in Europe is a bit of a double standard. Suspension of disbelief is necessary in any dramatic production.
I agree. It is only relevant if key to the plot. I don't care if someone is black or white, thin or fat, tall or short, when playing a roles,but there are obvious exceptions when it is key to plot:
A white Mandela, a thin Billy Bunter, a short Giant in the beanstalk.
One only has to apply common sense.
I will try asking you as JJ didn’t answer at the time of writing - if the epic series “Shaka Zulu” is remade do you think it’s fine to cast white actors as Zulu Impi, or do you think it would be utterly ridiculous?
If you think it’s ok then please explain why, and why the Zulu nation shouldn’t be livid about it, if you think it would clearly be ridiculous then please explain why we also should accept colour blind casting in other situations.
The racial dimension in South African history in "Shaka Zulu" still very much feeds through to the country's situation today. In comparison, any racial dimension in "King & Conqueror" has long ceased to be relevant. Thus, the two are not directly comparable.
You do realise Shaka Zulu is about the rise of the Zulu against other black South African tribes of the time, pre Anglo-Zulu war and large scale white settlement and so the racial black/white dimension to the story isn’t relevant to the country’s situation today?
Also, we continue to hear a great deal about the superiority of the Normans, thinly disguised as the aristocracy and royalty.
I’ve not watched it, but surely a missed trick not having the Normans played by surly Gallic actors with in-built shrugs constantly saying “bof” and “du coup”.
Donald Trump claims UK in for 'bad awakening' thanks to Starmer's energy policy Trump's comments come despite the UK's reliance on fossil fuels being one of the factors driving up energy costs, with wind power being significantly cheaper than nuclear, gas or coal https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/donald-trump-claims-uk-bad-35798659
Ye Gods, They just censored my comment.
I saw this story about illegal parking and wondered if you were the new Leon: PB by day; Fleet Street by night:-
Highway Code rule break mistake 'most drivers' are making
Drivers throughout Britain are being alerted to an obscure Highway Code regulation that could see them slapped with a substantial penalty, purely based on how they position their vehicle overnight. The Highway Code states that it's against the law to park facing against the direction of traffic flow once darkness falls, except when positioned within a designated parking space.
The rationale centres on visibility concerns: car headlights are engineered to bounce light off a vehicle's rear, rather than its front end. When parked incorrectly, cars become significantly more difficult to detect, heightening the chances of a collision. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/uk-news/highway-code-rule-break-mistake-35794413
I knew that BUT only because I am preparing to take my advanced driving test. One I didn't know and got my knuckles rapped on is going around mini roundabouts. Rule 188 states you must pass around them unless you are physically unable to do so. I do, but have been known to cut off a small section and got told off for doing so. It is an offence, although I was told you are unlikely to get pulled up for it by the Police unless you are involved in an accident.
I tend to use mini roundabouts more as a suggestion as to who has right of way.
I don't believe the "facing the direction of traffic" thing is enforced.
Not enforced normally, but if you have an accident on a mini roundabout while doing it then a fine and penalty points will be coming your way and that was from the traffic cop sitting next to me in the car at the time.
If there are other cars you give way as normal, rather than try to cut across before the car on your right
Well I can only tell you what a traffic policeman sitting next to me told me when I did it and we all make mistakes, no matter how good a driver we are so you can get caught out.
And "5 flights a day" which would all have to be military because airlines / lease companies can't do ut.
We got civil operators to fly into Basra, Baghdad and Mosul on behalf of the UK government during the height of festivities there when there were SAMs and drones flying around. Shonky African operator + Russian crew + lots of money = nobody gives a fuck.
It's a lot simpler to do it with military aircraft and crews because they can be more easily coerced but the civil option isn't impossible even at the 5 flights/day scale.
Where does that sit on capacity?
Mr Farage doubled down on 500k-600k per annum deportations.
Is that doable on 5 flights a day, presumably on aircraft up to the size of a Globemaster or a Voyager, bearing in mind security personnel, load factor etc ?
500k a day is 1300 people a day so minimum 6 flights and probably more if you have any unwilling travellers...
And I don't see how the logistics works.
Also we don't exactly have 500k people arriving by boat so exactly who else is he planning to remove from the country...
Apparently they will be rounded up like in the USA with an ICE style unit .
I really do not see this happening
Stop the boats absolutely, but a US style purge is not acceptable
So how do you remove illegal immigrants who have melted into the ether if not with border force raids. They already happen fairly regularly at businesses suspected of using illegal labour, are you suggesting that we shouldn't be doing these either?
Weak willed liberals and their unending empathy for criminals and illegal immigrants are more dangerous for this country than the criminals and illegals.
I am not a weak willed liberal but what is going on in the US is unacceptable
By all means raid businesses suspected of employing illegal immigrants and I have no problem with everyone having a mandatory ID card
Can you tell us in detail exactly what's happening in the US that you wouldn't want to bring to the UK. As I see it they're using the same tactics as here, just more aggressively than we currently do and they're enforcing deportation rather than doing a catch and release as the UK does.
I think you've been watching too much nonsense on the news about the "horrors" of the US deportation programme when the reality is that even now Trump is still behind the deportation rate of Obama.
That's the point, is it not ? Obama didn't spend tens of billions militarising ICE as a private army, or disappear law abiding long term residents with families.
Obama didn't have to contend with sanctuary cities and those long term residents are still illegal, they don't have citizenship or legal right to remain in the US. Whether they've been there for 5 days or 5 years they should be removed. Obama also deported them too fwiw, he was known as the deporter in chief after all.
There is an alternative argument, which for some value of X, if you have lived in the country for X years, and the authorities are in full knowledge of your status, and have taken no action, then they have acquiesced in your residency. Squatters rights, if you like.
Which is meaningless when a new administration arrives and rips up that idea. See Trump. The only thing that matters is citizenship or legally recognised leave to remain. People who don't have either of those are legitimate targets for deportation.
In practice it seems, yes.
However I thought the idea was the rule of law continues past administration changes.
Also, if someone has lived illegally but in full view of the authorities for a number of years, it would seem reasonable for them to have some time to put their affairs in order.
There is of course the idea that people should take steps to gain residency/citizenship in good time, but IIRC some of the deportees have been doing just that
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
It's nonsense. It's ahistorical bullshit. History is not there to provide work for actors but to accurately tell the story of the past, not revise it to conform to CurrentThink.
It's also especially stupid because there's an easy work around, if you think it's vitally important that actors get work: make it animated. Have the actors of whatever colour voice the Anglo-Saxons without pretending the Jutes came from Jamaica. History gets portrayed accurately, and the actors get roles regardless of skin colour.
Actually TV is there to (theoretically in the case of King & Conqueror) entertain and provide work for actors among others, its duty to history is pretty far down the list.
Isn't the BBC's role 'to inform, educate, and entertain' ?
If so its duty to history, at least in not producing misleading inaccuracies, comes under the 'educate' part.
Some undocumented US workers actually pay taxes . They chose to do this in the hope it would help their case .
For many years the situation in the USA has been one of knowing there are many undocumented workers , accepting the need for them to do the jobs many Americans don’t want to do . And employers did not have to verify their legality . So it was a bizarre you shouldn’t be here but we don’t really want to get rid of you situation .
Also the US constitution and birthright citizenship complicates things . Do you punish children , tear them away from the only life they’ve known and send them to a country which is really foreign to them .
Donald Trump claims UK in for 'bad awakening' thanks to Starmer's energy policy Trump's comments come despite the UK's reliance on fossil fuels being one of the factors driving up energy costs, with wind power being significantly cheaper than nuclear, gas or coal https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/donald-trump-claims-uk-bad-35798659
Ye Gods, They just censored my comment.
I saw this story about illegal parking and wondered if you were the new Leon: PB by day; Fleet Street by night:-
Highway Code rule break mistake 'most drivers' are making
Drivers throughout Britain are being alerted to an obscure Highway Code regulation that could see them slapped with a substantial penalty, purely based on how they position their vehicle overnight. The Highway Code states that it's against the law to park facing against the direction of traffic flow once darkness falls, except when positioned within a designated parking space.
The rationale centres on visibility concerns: car headlights are engineered to bounce light off a vehicle's rear, rather than its front end. When parked incorrectly, cars become significantly more difficult to detect, heightening the chances of a collision. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/uk-news/highway-code-rule-break-mistake-35794413
I knew that BUT only because I am preparing to take my advanced driving test. One I didn't know and got my knuckles rapped on is going around mini roundabouts. Rule 188 states you must pass around them unless you are physically unable to do so. I do, but have been known to cut off a small section and got told off for doing so. It is an offence, although I was told you are unlikely to get pulled up for it by the Police unless you are involved in an accident.
I tend to use mini roundabouts more as a suggestion as to who has right of way.
I don't believe the "facing the direction of traffic" thing is enforced.
Not enforced normally, but if you have an accident on a mini roundabout while doing it then a fine and penalty points will be coming your way and that was from the traffic cop sitting next to me in the car at the time.
If there are other cars you give way as normal, rather than try to cut across before the car on your right
Well I can only tell you what a traffic policeman sitting next to me told me when I did it and we all make mistakes, no matter how good a driver we are so you can get caught out.
Yes I'm aware that you are supposed to go round a mini roundabout as if it was a normal one, but if there is no-one else around you are not going to cause an accident. A bit like cutting the corner when you turn right - what is wrong is when cars cut the corner despite the fact there is a car in the way at the end of the road they are turning into
This is something I have changed my mind on to a certain extent; in the past I’d agree that using non white actors in British period pieces was ‘PC gone max’, but now I think it would be completely wrong to deny a black actor the chance to be cast in one. A multi racial school doing a play about the 1966 World Cup Final would cast all kids as players, even though all 22 on the pitch were white, and a production of Shakespeare with an entirely non white cast would be just as legitimate as any other.
Where it does seem provocative is casting title characters; you can’t have a white Mandela or black Henry VIII, although I’d probably be more ok with the latter
BBC series ‘King and Conqueror’ branded ‘woke’ and ‘historically inaccurate’ for featuring black actors playing Anglo-Saxons.
The series portrays the historical Battle of Hastings in 1066 between William, Duke of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England.
It's nonsense. It's ahistorical bullshit. History is not there to provide work for actors but to accurately tell the story of the past, not revise it to conform to CurrentThink.
It's also especially stupid because there's an easy work around, if you think it's vitally important that actors get work: make it animated. Have the actors of whatever colour voice the Anglo-Saxons without pretending the Jutes came from Jamaica. History gets portrayed accurately, and the actors get roles regardless of skin colour.
Actually TV is there to (theoretically in the case of King & Conqueror) entertain and provide work for actors among others, its duty to history is pretty far down the list.
Isn't the BBC's role 'to inform, educate, and entertain' ?
If so its duty to history, at least in not producing misleading inaccuracies, comes under the 'educate' part.
But as stated below, they are all inaccurate to one degree of another. There's just the inaccuracies you dislike, and the ones you ignore or do not recognise.
This is from a pro govt account, so using these quotes as implied criticism of Reform, but I am of the opinion that it is the bogus asylum seekers who are to blame for any genuine refugees being stranded in dangerous places, not a foreign government who is refusing to accept the premise that 50,000 young men dossing in France must be taken in as if we owe them a favour.
Cathy Newman, "How does this sound to someone from Afghanistan who is facing torture or even death?"
Gawain Towler, member of Reform UK board, "We are not responsible for the whole world's problems.. I don't care about the whole world"
There’s a X account that digs in to who funds/who is behind other accounts, Charlotte Gill, and she is on Farrukhs case. Apparently he is in cahoots with , Campbell, Vorderman, etc to push stuff on social media
I wouldn't exactly characterise Charlotte Gill as a reliable source ; she deliberately provokes and does not engage. (You may differ.)
Her writing credits are The Sunday Telegraph, the Critic, the Sun and the Daily Mail. And she learnt her trade as a producer at GB News.
She's modestly on my radar as one of a fairly small number of ranters-about-cycling, and features a couple of times a year on the Roadcc spot. My particular beef is that she creates "cyclists vs disabled / elderly people" narratives; I think that when she finds out that mobility scooters and electric wheelchairs use 'cycle tracks' aka mobility tracks, her head will explode.
eg Charlotte Gill @CharlotteCGill Feb 13, 2024 This is what’s happening all over London. @willnorman is turning it into CycleLand for himself and his cycle freak friends. Who cares about the elderly and people with mobility needs? I guess they can just hop on a unicycle. And forget the idea of emergency services getting past.
Leo Gibbons @Layo_FH Feb 13, 2024 Good cycle infrastructure is great for ppl who use hand-operated tricycles or mobility scooters.
And you’re much more likely to find older cyclists when there’s good infrastructure. Nearly a quarter of all trips made by Dutch over-65s, are cycled.
This is from a pro govt account, so using these quotes as implied criticism of Reform, but I am of the opinion that it is the bogus asylum seekers who are to blame for any genuine refugees being stranded in dangerous places, not a foreign government who is refusing to accept the premise that 50,000 young men dossing in France must be taken in as if we owe them a favour.
Cathy Newman, "How does this sound to someone from Afghanistan who is facing torture or even death?"
Gawain Towler, member of Reform UK board, "We are not responsible for the whole world's problems.. I don't care about the whole world"
There’s a X account that digs in to who funds/who is behind other accounts, Charlotte Gill, and she is on Farrukhs case. Apparently he is in cahoots with , Campbell, Vorderman, etc to push stuff on social media
I wouldn't exactly characterise Charlotte Gill as a reliable source ; she deliberately provokes and does not engage. (You may differ.)
Her writing credits are The Sunday Telegraph, the Critic, the Sun and the Mail on Sunday. And she learnt her trade as a producer at GB News.
She's modestly on my radar as one of a fairly small number of obsessive ranters-about-cycling, and features a couple of times a year on the Roadcc spot. My particular beef is that she creates "cyclists vs disabled / elderly people" narratives; I think that when she finds out that mobility scooters and electric wheelchairs use 'cycle tracks' aka mobility tracks, her head will explode.
eg Charlotte Gill @CharlotteCGill Feb 13, 2024 This is what’s happening all over London. @willnorman is turning it into CycleLand for himself and his cycle freak friends. Who cares about the elderly and people with mobility needs? I guess they can just hop on a unicycle. And forget the idea of emergency services getting past.
Leo Gibbons @Layo_FH Feb 13, 2024 Good cycle infrastructure is great for ppl who use hand-operated tricycles or mobility scooters.
And you’re much more likely to find older cyclists when there’s good infrastructure. Nearly a quarter of all trips made by Dutch over-65s, are cycled.
Some undocumented US workers actually pay taxes . They chose to do this in the hope it would help their case .
For many years the situation in the USA has been one of knowing there are many undocumented workers , accepting the need for them to do the jobs many Americans don’t want to do . And employers did not have to verify their legality . So it was a bizarre you shouldn’t be here but we don’t really want to get rid of you situation .
Also the US constitution and birthright citizenship complicates things . Do you punish children , tear them away from the only life they’ve known and send them to a country which is really foreign to them .
If an undocumented worker attempts to pay tax, IRS should shop them to ICE. Hence my view that the federal government, in many cases, has acquiesced in their presence
Comments
I expect Labour will try initially to narrow how judges deal with Article 8 . This wouldn’t be that controversial. I’m minded to think of the current Labour approach as similar to the GB success at cycling. Loads of small changes , so marginal gains in the hope that collectively it helps to bring down the boat numbers .
Trump's comments come despite the UK's reliance on fossil fuels being one of the factors driving up energy costs, with wind power being significantly cheaper than nuclear, gas or coal
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/donald-trump-claims-uk-bad-35798659
For the Government, one of their perhaps three most important items of legislation has been about workers' rights, the Employment Rights Act. Their failure to drive home the message about it is one reason I think their Comms are still up a creek.
That covered (AI summary of some nuggets): "fire and rehire" practices, making day-one unfair dismissal rights effective in 2027, and modernizing trade union legislation with greater workplace access and simpler recognition processes. The bill also addresses zero-hour contracts, introduces parental leave and bereavement leave, and requires employers to inform staff of their right to join a trade union.
There's also the Minimum Wage measures - the biggish jump, and removing the lower minimum wage for younger adults.
That's several things and I don't agree with all of them, but abandoning the workers it is not.
The Popular Party is the name of the main Spanish centre right party
North Korean troops claim they're ready to jump into Putin's war in Ukraine at any moment, with a rough figure of 100,000 people being mentioned by military experts
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/kim-jong-un-send-100k-35796347
We live in an age where morons present racial propaganda claiming a white family famous for incest over generations produced a black African woman (Cleopatra) and the media regularly, and wrongly, portrays Hannibal Barca as a black African, as if the Sahara doesn't exist and North Africans = black.
Pretending that portraying history accurately is somehow a bad thing is a very odd take.
Unilateral action, such as contemplated by Reform, risks a lot of uncertainties, not least because it is likely to have knock on consequences for other countries which may well invite retaliation in ways we will not appreciate. What is increasingly clear is the live and let live attitude of our civil service, courts and political class is simply unacceptable to the majority. I am nervous that Farage will use this issue to propel himself into Downing Street unless the liberal consensus amongst the other parties breaks in a material way.
Not just this summer. Or did you miss this - https://bod.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/commissiononantisemitismreport-web.pdf - on the rise in anti-Jewish discrimination over the past few years?
None of these stories portray history 'accurately'. And I'd argue that portraying Cleopatra as a white woman is as much nonsense as portraying her as a black woman. She's likely to be similar in skin tone to Mrs J: Mediterranean / olive skinned, and appearing darker in summer and lighter in winter. Casting Lizzie Taylor was 'ahistorical nonsense'.
But it really does not matter much as long as they have a good story with great dialogue, and can act.
Obama didn't spend tens of billions militarising ICE as a private army, or disappear law abiding long term residents with families.
Is it not possible for people of all political stripes and sensitivities to occasionally just say “yeh, that’s a bit of a shit decision” because really that is what this casting decision was, it doesn’t suddenly make you racist so don’t worry.
I disagree with you @HYUFD on Nelson Mandela and agree with @isam. Mandela being black is rather fundamental to the whole point of the story. Normans and Anglo Saxons being white is not. OK they clearly weren't black. They also have the wrong haircuts*, and speak the wrong language for the time, but we overlook that. We can overlook (with difficulty I grant you as it is obvious) black Anglo Saxons. It is a bit more difficult to overlook a white Mandela.
* A review I read said it was confusing flipping between the Norman and the Anglo Saxon locations and would have been a lot easy if they had the correct and different haircuts for the time.
Trump doesn't care much about either other than reducing their exports to the US
And those willing to exploit such - which includes Farage, and the rest.
But there are plenty of people who end up with a cartoon version of history and politics. Have we forgotten Farage's Upper Second graduate of KCL sidekick?
https://jackanderton.com/read/a-self-interested-british-foreign-policy/
Highway Code rule break mistake 'most drivers' are making
Drivers throughout Britain are being alerted to an obscure Highway Code regulation that could see them slapped with a substantial penalty, purely based on how they position their vehicle overnight. The Highway Code states that it's against the law to park facing against the direction of traffic flow once darkness falls, except when positioned within a designated parking space.
The rationale centres on visibility concerns: car headlights are engineered to bounce light off a vehicle's rear, rather than its front end. When parked incorrectly, cars become significantly more difficult to detect, heightening the chances of a collision.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/uk-news/highway-code-rule-break-mistake-35794413
Given Reform are already firmly for leaving the ECHR there is also no guarantee Badenoch would gain more voters from Reform than she would lose to the LDs from such a policy either
The Afghans are a nation of parasites, to whom this country owes nothing.
Edit: The Taliban weren't parasites - horrible as their ideology is, they were at least willing to fight for it.
A film studio suggested having Julia Roberts play Harriet Tubman.
The same story would emerge - it’s very grim for the oppressed, some people are strong and rise above and fight, some people are utter arseholes. Flipping the races re Mandela adds absolutely zero unless the audience is so dense they can’t already see the problem and if they are that dense they aren’t going to the theatre/cinema to watch “a clever perspective on apartheid, freaky Friday meets twelve years a slave”.
A white Mandela, a thin Billy Bunter, a short Giant in the beanstalk.
One only has to apply common sense.
1. Start with Bozo
2. Wait until my wife has finished the vacuuming
To then suggest that the only good Afghans were the Taliban is ridiculous.
If you think it’s ok then please explain why, and why the Zulu nation shouldn’t be livid about it, if you think it would clearly be ridiculous then please explain why we also should accept colour blind casting in other situations.
I saw an all black production of The Importance of Being Ernest a couple of years ago. I anticipated it being a bit of a gimmick, but the cast was excellent, which is what mattered.
One of the best productions I've seen.
Certainly the casting was making something of a point, but in the event, the point was that it was just very good.
This is the piccie illustrating the story:
HWC rule 248 (having just read it) on night parking says that in a parking bay you can be facing either direction.
*This is going to become a very big deal over the next decade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ezPwSoXdX0
I don't believe the "facing the direction of traffic" thing is enforced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Bunter_of_Greyfriars_School_(TV_series)
Obama spent a good deal of his presidency trying to broker bipartisan agreement on regularising the law abiding, Legislation like the Dream Act has been around for well over two decades:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act
And the large majority of those he deported were recent arrivals across the southern border.
Obviously in making statements like I and @isam made you have to accept there will be cases where it is difficult to judge whether it is acceptable or not. I will admit I still really struggle with the actor being the wrong colour for the time and place of the plot even if only in a subsidiary role, but I perceive that to be my problem, because I don't worry about other inaccuracies.
If the government falls, then Macron has to try and stitch together yet another government from the wreckage (surely getting very difficult indeed) or calling fresh elections as I believe he is now able to do as enough time has passed since the last ones.
If that election produces yet further deadlock, or a RN government, I wonder what the chances are of Macron resigning this year. I only posit this as a question to the room - I am no significant expert on the French constitution. One thing that could be of tactical benefit is that MLP is still barred from running, I believe - and if he resigns I believe a new presidential election has to be held straight away. I am not sure if MLP could fast track her appeal in that time. That said, Bardella seems to be holding up ok in polling too.
Actual workers are problematic and often need shooting.
Wouldn’t get one cast as Adolf Hitler though!
The number of Afghans who were actually willing to fight the Taliban in 2021 turned out to be approximately zero.
That includes all those Afghan 'special forces', who must have numbered in the tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands.
So, throughout the two decades of western involvement in Afghanistan the people were only supportive in as far as it benefit themselves - perhaps a reasonable attitude but also one which other countries should now reciprocate towards them.
And as it is in no way in Britain's interest to allow Afghans to migrate here we should not have accepted any asylum seekers from there.
As for the Taliban, a horrible ideology but at least they're clear in their intentions.
It's definitely possible but I think we need to put a 12-month deadline otherwise it will take too long. Should've changed in 2021.
However I thought the idea was the rule of law continues past administration changes.
Also, if someone has lived illegally but in full view of the authorities for a number of years, it would seem reasonable for them to have some time to put their affairs in order.
There is of course the idea that people should take steps to gain residency/citizenship in good time, but IIRC some of the deportees have been doing just that
If so its duty to history, at least in not producing misleading inaccuracies, comes under the 'educate' part.
For many years the situation in the USA has been one of knowing there are many undocumented workers , accepting the need for them to do the jobs many Americans don’t want to do . And employers did not have to verify their legality . So it was a bizarre you shouldn’t be here but we don’t really want to get rid of you situation .
Also the US constitution and birthright citizenship complicates things . Do you punish children , tear them away from the only life they’ve known and send them to a country which is really foreign to them .
Her writing credits are The Sunday Telegraph, the Critic, the Sun and the Daily Mail. And she learnt her trade as a producer at GB News.
She's modestly on my radar as one of a fairly small number of ranters-about-cycling, and features a couple of times a year on the Roadcc spot. My particular beef is that she creates "cyclists vs disabled / elderly people" narratives; I think that when she finds out that mobility scooters and electric wheelchairs use 'cycle tracks' aka mobility tracks, her head will explode.
eg
Charlotte Gill @CharlotteCGill
Feb 13, 2024
This is what’s happening all over London. @willnorman is turning it into CycleLand for himself and his cycle freak friends.
Who cares about the elderly and people with mobility needs? I guess they can just hop on a unicycle.
And forget the idea of emergency services getting past.
Leo Gibbons @Layo_FH
Feb 13, 2024
Good cycle infrastructure is great for ppl who use hand-operated tricycles or mobility scooters.
And you’re much more likely to find older cyclists when there’s good infrastructure. Nearly a quarter of all trips made by Dutch over-65s, are cycled.
Feb 13, 2024
@CharlotteCGill
Blah blah blah another young man who assumes everyone thinks the same as him
https://x.com/CharlotteCGill/status/1757468729934286979
Have a good day everyone.
Her writing credits are The Sunday Telegraph, the Critic, the Sun and the Mail on Sunday. And she learnt her trade as a producer at GB News.
She's modestly on my radar as one of a fairly small number of obsessive ranters-about-cycling, and features a couple of times a year on the Roadcc spot. My particular beef is that she creates "cyclists vs disabled / elderly people" narratives; I think that when she finds out that mobility scooters and electric wheelchairs use 'cycle tracks' aka mobility tracks, her head will explode.
eg
Charlotte Gill @CharlotteCGill
Feb 13, 2024
This is what’s happening all over London. @willnorman is turning it into CycleLand for himself and his cycle freak friends.
Who cares about the elderly and people with mobility needs? I guess they can just hop on a unicycle.
And forget the idea of emergency services getting past.
Leo Gibbons @Layo_FH
Feb 13, 2024
Good cycle infrastructure is great for ppl who use hand-operated tricycles or mobility scooters.
And you’re much more likely to find older cyclists when there’s good infrastructure. Nearly a quarter of all trips made by Dutch over-65s, are cycled.
Feb 13, 2024
@CharlotteCGill
Blah blah blah another young man who assumes everyone thinks the same as him
https://x.com/CharlotteCGill/status/1757468729934286979
Have a good day everyone.
Lord Hampton will be disappointed.
I used to work in Graz, or just outside.
Lovely place, lovely people and the countryside around it is majestic.
You should read up on why the Schwarzenegger stadium was renamed.