Lots of humblebragging in a “literally voting to make themselves poorer” way here today. It’s was a punchline when people voted Leave
Now now. Nice middle class people are allowed to vote on morals and principles. Dirty poor people have to vote on narrow economic self-interest, otherwise they're stupid.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Ad in the rise in the height of headlights (bigger, taller cars, SUVs etc) and the brighter lights and travelling on A roads at night can be a real pain in the arse. The brightness of even dipped lights can be an issue.
Which is ridiculous because articulated lorry headlights are typically well aimed and don’t blind me in my Polo. Tesla are by far the worst, it’s like looking into the sun.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Imagine the fuss about representation if only one in fifty actors in adverts were non white, and how much value would be given to the argument that it didn’t matter because they are just works of fiction that aren’t meant to be representative.
Then David Lammy or Diane Abbott mentions it, and is accused of racism by every virtue signaller in town
50% of ads feature black people - but 100% of populations in the UK feature black people (there's one population, sure, but it's the right comparison).
Neither of you has considered *how many* people there are in each advertisement [edit: apart ftom isam's suggestion, apols.]
The true comparison to the 4% figure is the probability that a single person in the collective population shown in the ads is black. The ads might, put together, be precisely representative, over-representative, or under-representative. I have no idea which is right.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Whilst I also find the ratio in adverts a bit strange, not that I care, advertisers do it to maximise their impact. Their job is to sell products.
The comparison is also not comparing like for like. Nearly all adverts contain multiple people therefore comparing the number of adverts containing black people to the number of black people in the population is also irrational. Having said that it is still out of proportion, but for the reasons given above.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
Sounds like the proverbial choice between "the unpalatable and the disastrous". Someone famous said that IIRC.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Whacking great logical fallacy right there. Can't you spot it?
I think it's incomplete information rather than a logical fallacy. We need to know the average number of people in an advert for one. And also the average number of black people in an advert.
Sure, but it's also a fallacy to make a comparison of two incommensurable figures, like apples and oranges.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Whilst I also find the ratio in adverts a bit strange, not that I care, advertisers do it to maximise their impact. Their job is to sell products.
The comparison is also not comparing like for like. Nearly all adverts contain multiple people therefore comparing the number of adverts containing black people to the number of black people in the population is also irrational. Having said that it is still out of proportion, but for the reasons given above.
How many working class people do you see in adverts vs middle class? Old people (unless buying insurance or crime preventation devices) vs young people? Abled vs disabled? Pretty vs ugly?
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
It’s one of those arguments that people make to feel good about themselves.
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
I've never seen a fully convincing narrative as to why, though. The upper middle class (outside a very narrow intelligensia) used to be anything but.
It's one of the most fascinating political developments of the last 30 years.
The most interesting poll I saw recently was one that showed that the only section of the population that Labour has a clear lead among, is the privately-educated.
I think many would change their tune, if they actually got a radically redistributionist left wing government.
Surely that reflects that, of the parties currently on offer, Labour are the ones who are most likely to govern as a small-c conservative government, which people from that background tend to support.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
Sounds like the proverbial choice between "the unpalatable and the disastrous". Someone famous said that IIRC.
Like most other elections, then.
Except for 2019, which was a choice between different flavours of disastrous.
Danny Kruger currently doing a HUGE amount of mansplaining on R4 about what Ms Pochin actually meant.
Care to precis?
Pochin's words were bad, deeply offensive, wrong, but not racist. Tbf Nick Robinson tried to pin 'preparing for government' Dan down to what was so bad about the words if they were not racist, but got a lot of argle, bargle, fargle in return.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Whacking great logical fallacy right there. Can't you spot it?
I think it's incomplete information rather than a logical fallacy. We need to know the average number of people in an advert for one. And also the average number of black people in an advert.
Sure, but it's also a fallacy to make a comparison of two incommensurable figures, like apples and oranges.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Ad in the rise in the height of headlights (bigger, taller cars, SUVs etc) and the brighter lights and travelling on A roads at night can be a real pain in the arse. The brightness of even dipped lights can be an issue.
I live on the coast, and some car headlights on far away headlands look brighter than the lighthouse lamp. Probably nearer to me, to be fair, but still a very long way off.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
I'm really pleased that fewer adverts seem to be aimed at me. I hate people trying to sell me shit
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Whacking great logical fallacy right there. Can't you spot it?
I think it's incomplete information rather than a logical fallacy. We need to know the average number of people in an advert for one. And also the average number of black people in an advert.
Sure, but it's also a fallacy to make a comparison of two incommensurable figures, like apples and oranges.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
I couldn't give a monkeys... we never watch adverts if we can possibly avoid them. Sky q box and the fast forward capability is wonderful. Never use catch up.on c4 or 5 as you then can't pass them by.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Imagine the fuss about representation if only one in fifty actors in adverts were non white, and how much value would be given to the argument that it didn’t matter because they are just works of fiction that aren’t meant to be representative.
Then David Lammy or Diane Abbott mentions it, and is accused of racism by every virtue signaller in town
50% of ads feature black people - but 100% of populations in the UK feature black people (there's one population, sure, but it's the right comparison).
Neither of you has considered *how many* people there are in each advertisement.
The true comparison to the 4% figure is the probability that a single person in the collective population shown in the ads is black. The ads might, put together, be precisely representative, over-representative, or under-representative. I have no idea which is right.
I wrote a blog about a similar thing twelve years ago, the Midsomer Murders controversy, and the ratio being complained about was roughly accurate.
The biggest culprit is EastEnders, they really do under represent Black & Asian people. To be honest this is an argument against my point, because there hasn’t been outrage about it, which surprises me. Accuracy would involve completely changing the cast, storylines and ethos of the show, but it was originally meant to reflect the East End. As I’ve said before, I think the BBC don’t accurately portray the demographic because no one outside the M25 would believe it if the show was mainly Muslims speaking Urdu & Arabic
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
My main reservation about Labour (and I'm still chair of my CLP) is the negative bias - I largely agree, but I'm genuinely unsure what we are trying to achieve in the long term. The Greens don't seem to have seriously considered the choices of actual power, and still project themselves as a pressure group. Your Party? Maybe.
I don't understand why Labour doesn't introduce PR before the next election. Better to be in office as part of a coalition than not at all.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
I'm really pleased that fewer adverts seem to be aimed at me. I hate people trying to sell me shit
I always think one should also think about how we evaluate whether an advert is good or not. Often the ones we think are good are ones we can't remember what they were for and the apparently crap one we do remember what they are for. The classic for this was the Cinzano and Martini ads. Both did apparently great ads but people could not tell you which was which.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
My main reservation about Labour (and I'm still chair of my CLP) is the negative bias - I largely agree, but I'm genuinely unsure what we are trying to achieve in the long term. The Greens don't seem to have seriously considered the choices of actual power, and still project themselves as a pressure group. Your Party? Maybe.
I don't understand why Labour doesn't introduce PR before the next election. Better to be in office as part of a coalition than not at all.
Hugely unpopular government unilaterally altering the way elections work might not necessarily go down well.
It also sets an abysmal precedent, especially given the lack of a manifesto commitment.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
It's odd that politicians now feel they need to lecture businesses on how to market their own products. Presumably Reform are advocating an allocation system, whereby businesses need some sort of licence to have non-white people in their ads. (Will this be achieved by a bidding process or will a government committee decide on the quotas?) Either way, I'd be annoyed if my profits suffered because I couldn't make an optimally focussed advert.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Imagine the fuss about representation if only one in fifty actors in adverts were non white, and how much value would be given to the argument that it didn’t matter because they are just works of fiction that aren’t meant to be representative.
Then David Lammy or Diane Abbott mentions it, and is accused of racism by every virtue signaller in town
50% of ads feature black people - but 100% of populations in the UK feature black people (there's one population, sure, but it's the right comparison).
Neither of you has considered *how many* people there are in each advertisement.
The true comparison to the 4% figure is the probability that a single person in the collective population shown in the ads is black. The ads might, put together, be precisely representative, over-representative, or under-representative. I have no idea which is right.
I wrote a blog about a similar thing twelve years ago, the Midsomer Murders controversy, and the ratio being complained about was roughly accurate.
The biggest culprit is EastEnders, they really do under represent Black & Asian people. To be honest this is an argument against my point, because there hasn’t been outrage about it, which surprises me. Accuracy would involve completely changing the cast, storylines and ethos of the show, but it was originally meant to reflect the East End. As I’ve said before, I think the BBC don’t accurately portray the demographic because no one outside the M25 would believe it if the show was mainly Muslims speaking Urdu & Arabic
And what about the number of murders, suicides, divorces, accidents and deadly diseases? They aren't proportional either. Maybe it's just a TV show. And folk wouldn't watch if it was all getting up early, coming home late, grabbing a takeaway and having an early night. Because it's entertainment. Just as advertising is marketing. It isn't supposed to be realistic.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Imagine the fuss about representation if only one in fifty actors in adverts were non white, and how much value would be given to the argument that it didn’t matter because they are just works of fiction that aren’t meant to be representative.
Then David Lammy or Diane Abbott mentions it, and is accused of racism by every virtue signaller in town
Imagine spending your time complaining that the percentage of white actors in adverts doesn’t precisely line up with the percentage of white people in rural Lincolnshire rather than, you know, real problems. Good grief.
Grokipedia is up. Its York article is reasonable - and covers topics outside of the wiki version - but its search engine doesn't understand that 7/7 should be a synonym for the July 7th attacks. Article interlinking is non-existent but, interestingly, it's reference out links don't appear to be marked as nofollow or ugc. Robots.txt allows search indexing but no AI training. There's also no article history - so you'll be stuck using external archivers to see what it said at a certain point. The white on black UI is also not the best.
It's good first effort but isn't ready for primetime. It'll be interesting to see who ends up using it as a datasource.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Imagine the fuss about representation if only one in fifty actors in adverts were non white, and how much value would be given to the argument that it didn’t matter because they are just works of fiction that aren’t meant to be representative.
Then David Lammy or Diane Abbott mentions it, and is accused of racism by every virtue signaller in town
50% of ads feature black people - but 100% of populations in the UK feature black people (there's one population, sure, but it's the right comparison).
Neither of you has considered *how many* people there are in each advertisement.
The true comparison to the 4% figure is the probability that a single person in the collective population shown in the ads is black. The ads might, put together, be precisely representative, over-representative, or under-representative. I have no idea which is right.
I wrote a blog about a similar thing twelve years ago, the Midsomer Murders controversy, and the ratio being complained about was roughly accurate.
The biggest culprit is EastEnders, they really do under represent Black & Asian people. To be honest this is an argument against my point, because there hasn’t been outrage about it, which surprises me. Accuracy would involve completely changing the cast, storylines and ethos of the show, but it was originally meant to reflect the East End. As I’ve said before, I think the BBC don’t accurately portray the demographic because no one outside the M25 would believe it if the show was mainly Muslims speaking Urdu & Arabic
And what about the number of murders, suicides, divorces, accidents and deadly diseases? They aren't proportional either. Maybe it's just a TV show. And folk wouldn't watch if it was all getting up early, coming home late, grabbing a takeaway and having an early night. Because it's entertainment. Just as advertising is marketing. It isn't supposed to be realistic.
Given the number of murders she has been around I am amazed that the local police detectives not only don't consider Jessica Fletcher a prime suspect but actually enlist her help in solving the crimes.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Imagine the fuss about representation if only one in fifty actors in adverts were non white, and how much value would be given to the argument that it didn’t matter because they are just works of fiction that aren’t meant to be representative.
Then David Lammy or Diane Abbott mentions it, and is accused of racism by every virtue signaller in town
50% of ads feature black people - but 100% of populations in the UK feature black people (there's one population, sure, but it's the right comparison).
Neither of you has considered *how many* people there are in each advertisement.
The true comparison to the 4% figure is the probability that a single person in the collective population shown in the ads is black. The ads might, put together, be precisely representative, over-representative, or under-representative. I have no idea which is right.
I wrote a blog about a similar thing twelve years ago, the Midsomer Murders controversy, and the ratio being complained about was roughly accurate.
The biggest culprit is EastEnders, they really do under represent Black & Asian people. To be honest this is an argument against my point, because there hasn’t been outrage about it, which surprises me. Accuracy would involve completely changing the cast, storylines and ethos of the show, but it was originally meant to reflect the East End. As I’ve said before, I think the BBC don’t accurately portray the demographic because no one outside the M25 would believe it if the show was mainly Muslims speaking Urdu & Arabic
As you suggest, this is because it portrays what people outside London imagine East Enders are like. In fact I made a similar mistake myself, I recently spent some time trailing round East London/Essex car dealerships, expecting to encounter lots of Arfur Daleys, but in fact the dealers and staff were nearly all South Asian Muslims.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
Not really. It’s just advertisers wanting to make sure that all their potential customers are represented. The same people who care about this are the same people who think that peak oppression is that golliwogs are no longer ok.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
Do you also have a problem with models being disproportionately tall?
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
But are they?
As opposed to putting out adverts that shift the most breakfast cereal to the most customers?
Which is pretty cynical, but that's the advertising business for you.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
A recent Martin Wolf column in the FT quoted academic research suggesting that left wing populism tended to reduce GDP by about 15% versus the counterfactual while right wing populism reduced GDP by around 10%. This sounds plausible to me. So I suppose it comes down to whether you think the additional attacks on minorities etc are worse than an additional loss of 5% of GDP. For me the answer would certainly be yes. If we get a hard left populist government I would probably grin and bear it. Hard right populists would make me explore other options for residency.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Whilst I also find the ratio in adverts a bit strange, not that I care, advertisers do it to maximise their impact. Their job is to sell products.
The comparison is also not comparing like for like. Nearly all adverts contain multiple people therefore comparing the number of adverts containing black people to the number of black people in the population is also irrational. Having said that it is still out of proportion, but for the reasons given above.
How many working class people do you see in adverts vs middle class? Old people (unless buying insurance or crime preventation devices) vs young people? Abled vs disabled? Pretty vs ugly?
It is all driven by profit not woke.
How do you know someone is working class? Is it the flat cap and whippet?
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
My main reservation about Labour (and I'm still chair of my CLP) is the negative bias - I largely agree, but I'm genuinely unsure what we are trying to achieve in the long term. The Greens don't seem to have seriously considered the choices of actual power, and still project themselves as a pressure group. Your Party? Maybe.
I don't understand why Labour doesn't introduce PR before the next election. Better to be in office as part of a coalition than not at all.
They won't because they'll be monstered by the Greens if PR is introduced, probably end up as the third place party of the left. Eliminates all first time incumbency bonus for them.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
Why? I suppose we could do a survey of black people and ask them whether they feel patronised by black people appearing in ads and want to see fewer of them
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
Do you also have a problem with models being disproportionately tall?
Thinness is the bigger issue. Genuinely causes societal problems by presenting abnormal thinness as normal.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Imagine the fuss about representation if only one in fifty actors in adverts were non white, and how much value would be given to the argument that it didn’t matter because they are just works of fiction that aren’t meant to be representative.
Then David Lammy or Diane Abbott mentions it, and is accused of racism by every virtue signaller in town
Imagine spending your time complaining that the percentage of white actors in adverts doesn’t precisely line up with the percentage of white people in rural Lincolnshire rather than, you know, real problems. Good grief.
What a boring fucker eh?
Ok who’s got any beefs with the local councils planning permission portals?
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
But are they?
As opposed to putting out adverts that shift the most breakfast cereal to the most customers?
Which is pretty cynical, but that's the advertising business for you.
If Roger is typical of the industry, then I'm not sure why we're surprised by anything that they turn out.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
I'm really pleased that fewer adverts seem to be aimed at me. I hate people trying to sell me shit
I always think one should also think about how we evaluate whether an advert is good or not. Often the ones we think are good are ones we can't remember what they were for and the apparently crap one we do remember what they are for. The classic for this was the Cinzano and Martini ads. Both did apparently great ads but people could not tell you which was which.
To the consumer, the 'good' adverts are the really entertaining ones, but doesn't necessarily mean the product is memorable.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
I don't care. I wouldn't mind if most ads featured Brazilians because they tend to be better-looking than everyone else. 😊
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I would prefer neither. Also, are Corbyn and Foot even roughly equivalent ? Or indeed Trump and Farage ?
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Imagine the fuss about representation if only one in fifty actors in adverts were non white, and how much value would be given to the argument that it didn’t matter because they are just works of fiction that aren’t meant to be representative.
Then David Lammy or Diane Abbott mentions it, and is accused of racism by every virtue signaller in town
50% of ads feature black people - but 100% of populations in the UK feature black people (there's one population, sure, but it's the right comparison).
Neither of you has considered *how many* people there are in each advertisement.
The true comparison to the 4% figure is the probability that a single person in the collective population shown in the ads is black. The ads might, put together, be precisely representative, over-representative, or under-representative. I have no idea which is right.
I wrote a blog about a similar thing twelve years ago, the Midsomer Murders controversy, and the ratio being complained about was roughly accurate.
The biggest culprit is EastEnders, they really do under represent Black & Asian people. To be honest this is an argument against my point, because there hasn’t been outrage about it, which surprises me. Accuracy would involve completely changing the cast, storylines and ethos of the show, but it was originally meant to reflect the East End. As I’ve said before, I think the BBC don’t accurately portray the demographic because no one outside the M25 would believe it if the show was mainly Muslims speaking Urdu & Arabic
And what about the number of murders, suicides, divorces, accidents and deadly diseases? They aren't proportional either. Maybe it's just a TV show. And folk wouldn't watch if it was all getting up early, coming home late, grabbing a takeaway and having an early night. Because it's entertainment. Just as advertising is marketing. It isn't supposed to be realistic.
Well, you say that…
Wikipedia's description of the original producer of EastEnders objective reads;
"the show was to be about "everyday life" in the inner city "today" and regarded it as a "slice of life". Creator/producer Julia Smith declared that "We don't make life, we reflect it". She also said, "We decided to go for a realistic, fairly outspoken type of drama which could encompass stories about homosexuality, rape, unemployment, racial prejudice, etc., in a believable context. Above all, we wanted realism"."
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
Do you also have a problem with models being disproportionately tall?
Thinness is the bigger issue. Genuinely causes societal problems by presenting abnormal thinness as normal.
So that's 1/3 of people in ads should be obese to correctly reflect the UK population
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Imagine the fuss about representation if only one in fifty actors in adverts were non white, and how much value would be given to the argument that it didn’t matter because they are just works of fiction that aren’t meant to be representative.
Then David Lammy or Diane Abbott mentions it, and is accused of racism by every virtue signaller in town
50% of ads feature black people - but 100% of populations in the UK feature black people (there's one population, sure, but it's the right comparison).
Neither of you has considered *how many* people there are in each advertisement.
The true comparison to the 4% figure is the probability that a single person in the collective population shown in the ads is black. The ads might, put together, be precisely representative, over-representative, or under-representative. I have no idea which is right.
I wrote a blog about a similar thing twelve years ago, the Midsomer Murders controversy, and the ratio being complained about was roughly accurate.
The biggest culprit is EastEnders, they really do under represent Black & Asian people. To be honest this is an argument against my point, because there hasn’t been outrage about it, which surprises me. Accuracy would involve completely changing the cast, storylines and ethos of the show, but it was originally meant to reflect the East End. As I’ve said before, I think the BBC don’t accurately portray the demographic because no one outside the M25 would believe it if the show was mainly Muslims speaking Urdu & Arabic
And what about the number of murders, suicides, divorces, accidents and deadly diseases? They aren't proportional either. Maybe it's just a TV show. And folk wouldn't watch if it was all getting up early, coming home late, grabbing a takeaway and having an early night. Because it's entertainment. Just as advertising is marketing. It isn't supposed to be realistic.
Never been much of a TV fan but back in the day I used to find the then version of Emmerdale Farm tolerable - when it was about a farming community. Then suddenly it became all trouble & strife & conflict. No, thanks, not for me, but apparently that's what most of us want to watch. Drama.
Apparently the Gripen is quite a lot cheaper per flying hour than is the Mig-29. And massively cheaper than (eg) the F35.
Ukraine plans to receive up to 250 new aircraft. These are the F-16, Gripen and Rafale, - Zelensky.
“I am conducting three parallel conversations about aircraft — with the Swedes, the French and the Americans. And the general request for the future of our combat aviation is a fleet of 250 new aircraft,” he noted.
The President added that Gripen is one of the priority aircraft for Ukraine. This is because the maintenance of these fighters is the cheapest, and they are also convenient in terms of using weapons. https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1983092432251064626
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
I'm really pleased that fewer adverts seem to be aimed at me. I hate people trying to sell me shit
I always think one should also think about how we evaluate whether an advert is good or not. Often the ones we think are good are ones we can't remember what they were for and the apparently crap one we do remember what they are for. The classic for this was the Cinzano and Martini ads. Both did apparently great ads but people could not tell you which was which.
To the consumer, the 'good' adverts are the really entertaining ones, but doesn't necessarily mean the product is memorable.
For a long time I thought that the adverts for Audible were for headphones.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Whilst I also find the ratio in adverts a bit strange, not that I care, advertisers do it to maximise their impact. Their job is to sell products.
The comparison is also not comparing like for like. Nearly all adverts contain multiple people therefore comparing the number of adverts containing black people to the number of black people in the population is also irrational. Having said that it is still out of proportion, but for the reasons given above.
How many working class people do you see in adverts vs middle class? Old people (unless buying insurance or crime preventation devices) vs young people? Abled vs disabled? Pretty vs ugly?
It is all driven by profit not woke.
How do you know someone is working class? Is it the flat cap and whippet?
Accent, clothes, look and vibe give a general idea. Not going to get everyone right, but if you see 50 people in adverts and they nearly all look and sound more middle class than working class, then I get the impression they are under represented.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
Do you also have a problem with models being disproportionately tall?
Thinness is the bigger issue. Genuinely causes societal problems by presenting abnormal thinness as normal.
So that's 1/3 of people in ads should be obese to correctly reflect the UK population
Only if we can only show them from the neck down...
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
Do you also have a problem with models being disproportionately tall?
Thinness is the bigger issue. Genuinely causes societal problems by presenting abnormal thinness as normal.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
Do you also have a problem with models being disproportionately tall?
Thinness is the bigger issue. Genuinely causes societal problems by presenting abnormal thinness as normal.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
My main reservation about Labour (and I'm still chair of my CLP) is the negative bias - I largely agree, but I'm genuinely unsure what we are trying to achieve in the long term. The Greens don't seem to have seriously considered the choices of actual power, and still project themselves as a pressure group. Your Party? Maybe.
I don't understand why Labour doesn't introduce PR before the next election. Better to be in office as part of a coalition than not at all.
Hugely unpopular government unilaterally altering the way elections work might not necessarily go down well.
It also sets an abysmal precedent, especially given the lack of a manifesto commitment.
I would expect the Lords to block electoral reform without a manifesto commitment.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
Not really. It’s just advertisers wanting to make sure that all their potential customers are represented. The same people who care about this are the same people who think that peak oppression is that golliwogs are no longer ok.
I've kept out oof this because its a topic in which all opinions are wilfully misinterpreted. The crime she has committed is noticing. Dont be under any illusions that activist groups havent been counting. It's what they do, they count and they count. They enter organisations through DEI, through external consulting and the shake down begins "it's a nice company you have here, it would be a shame if anything happened to it".
The only thing the Reform MP did was notice the cultural revolution that has been happening.
Looks like there might be an eyewall replacement imminent but there's still a clear central eye for the time being.
The slow speed is going to be the real killer - 1/2m of rain is not funny.
I expect we'll get the remnants (the rain, mostly) in about a week or two.
I hope our people are gearing up to help quickly afterwards. Where's it likely to go after Jamaica, is it Cuba?
Indeed, there will need to be a whole army of help. Whether the US will contribute, who knows?
Cuba after that, yes. It will lose some power crossing land and the atmospheric conditions will get slightly less favourable, but there will still be a lot of damage.
Then the Bahamas, but by then it will be more like a 'normal' hurricane rather than the catastrophic thing it is now.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
I would prefer neither. Also, are Corbyn and Foot even roughly equivalent ? Or indeed Trump and Farage ?
Neither would I.
I wasn't suggesting the groupings were equivalent but just putting them in the more left or more right ballpark. Farage and Trump aren't the same. Although I was around for both Foot and Corbyn I am not sure about them. Too far away from each other to make a comparison and I can't be bothered to check the details. Foot I definitely liked more and for whom I have more respect, although I wouldn't have wanted to be PM.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
My main reservation about Labour (and I'm still chair of my CLP) is the negative bias - I largely agree, but I'm genuinely unsure what we are trying to achieve in the long term. The Greens don't seem to have seriously considered the choices of actual power, and still project themselves as a pressure group. Your Party? Maybe.
I don't understand why Labour doesn't introduce PR before the next election. Better to be in office as part of a coalition than not at all.
Hugely unpopular government unilaterally altering the way elections work might not necessarily go down well.
It also sets an abysmal precedent, especially given the lack of a manifesto commitment.
I would expect the Lords to block electoral reform without a manifesto commitment.
If Labour ever get round to it, you can expect HoL to block electoral reform with a manifesto commitment. HoL reform needs to have been started by now, voting age as well. Both will be dragged out as long as possible.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
I'm really pleased that fewer adverts seem to be aimed at me. I hate people trying to sell me shit
I always think one should also think about how we evaluate whether an advert is good or not. Often the ones we think are good are ones we can't remember what they were for and the apparently crap one we do remember what they are for. The classic for this was the Cinzano and Martini ads. Both did apparently great ads but people could not tell you which was which.
To the consumer, the 'good' adverts are the really entertaining ones, but doesn't necessarily mean the product is memorable.
Yep. The Maisy (sp) perfume advert drives me crazy. I want to throw something at the TV and I am the last person the ad is aimed at, but I bloody well remember it.
Danny Kruger’s interview this morning feels like a cautionary tale for Tory MPs thinking of defecting. He’s about to launch his grand new Reform policy and instead has to painfully blither that yes Sarah Pochin shouldn’t be suspended and what the difference is between racism and racist intent.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Yes, it's a problem for me too, but it includes those blinding flashing lights on bicycles. They should be illegal, but can't see anything being done about them.
In Germany they have specific rules about bike lights - we could have the same given they are often higher than car lights and some brands are approaching the same brightness - mine are 900 lumen versus 1,500 in my car.
But frankly the risk is much higher for the cyclist in not being seen, so there's no chance they'll try to restrict the lights.
Since 2005, flashing bicycle lights are permitted to be used as sole lights, provided the light flashes between 60 and 240 times per minute (1-4Hz).
I think in Germany it's more about beam direction.
Anyway, there is a live debate about what's safer - flashing lights or constant. The former last 10x longer on battery and in daytime running you definitely want flashing for long distance visibility.
I appreciate they cause some drivers issues but the number of times I've nearly been hit despite lights + high vis + reflectors means I would never advocate for restricting their use. The consequences are fatal if you're not seen and drivers should slow down if they are struggling to see (or get to the optician ASAP).
I try to run at least one flashing and one constant front and rear. Flashing to grab the attention, constant to make it easier to judge distance and speed. It doesn't help with the significant minority of drivers incapable of judging distances and speeds even in broad daylight but it's a start.
I once encountered a cyclist with only a flashing white light *at the back*. I saw him, fair enough, but it took me a while to work out his speed and direction, on an unlit windy country road. Can't imagine what he was thinking. Surely rear lights should be red.
I'm always shocked when I encounter cyclists at night with no lights and wearing dark clothes. Usually kids.
On this year's France cycling trip our sleeper train to Paris from Toulouse got cancelled. The only train we could get got us into Paris at midnight. Although we never planned to cycle at night we had lights just in case, but absolutely never expected to use them at midnight and in Paris. Fortunately we also had tape and attached them to our helmets. As it happened cycling in Paris at night is a damn sight safer than during the day.
The biggest problem with the flashing white light was that the cyclist was also wearing dark clothing. Initially it seemed that the cycle was approaching me on the wrong side of the road. I had to slow right down and wait for my brain to adjust.
Of course cyclists out at night with dark clothing and no lights are too frequent to be worth mentioning. And while I'm quite good at remembering to wear a bright T shirt when running, and taking a torch or head torch, I have realised that as a pedestrian I am not that easily seen, as I tend to go out in jeans and a dark blue fleece.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
My main reservation about Labour (and I'm still chair of my CLP) is the negative bias - I largely agree, but I'm genuinely unsure what we are trying to achieve in the long term. The Greens don't seem to have seriously considered the choices of actual power, and still project themselves as a pressure group. Your Party? Maybe.
I don't understand why Labour doesn't introduce PR before the next election. Better to be in office as part of a coalition than not at all.
Hugely unpopular government unilaterally altering the way elections work might not necessarily go down well.
It also sets an abysmal precedent, especially given the lack of a manifesto commitment.
I would expect the Lords to block electoral reform without a manifesto commitment.
If Labour ever get round to it, you can expect HoL to block electoral reform with a manifesto commitment. HoL reform needs to have been started by now, voting age as well. Both will be dragged out as long as possible.
Hasn't the House of Lords been reformed up the wazoo? There's only 92 hereditary peers, and it sounds like the Lords overall does a damn good bread and butter job of going through line by line of the bills than the Commons does.
Danny Kruger’s interview this morning feels like a cautionary tale for Tory MPs thinking of defecting. He’s about to launch his grand new Reform policy and instead has to painfully blither that yes Sarah Pochin shouldn’t be suspended and what the difference is between racism and racist intent.
How is that going to be any different to the Conservatives under Jenrick or Lam after the local elections in 2026?
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Yes, it's a problem for me too, but it includes those blinding flashing lights on bicycles. They should be illegal, but can't see anything being done about them.
In Germany they have specific rules about bike lights - we could have the same given they are often higher than car lights and some brands are approaching the same brightness - mine are 900 lumen versus 1,500 in my car.
But frankly the risk is much higher for the cyclist in not being seen, so there's no chance they'll try to restrict the lights.
Since 2005, flashing bicycle lights are permitted to be used as sole lights, provided the light flashes between 60 and 240 times per minute (1-4Hz).
I think in Germany it's more about beam direction.
Anyway, there is a live debate about what's safer - flashing lights or constant. The former last 10x longer on battery and in daytime running you definitely want flashing for long distance visibility.
I appreciate they cause some drivers issues but the number of times I've nearly been hit despite lights + high vis + reflectors means I would never advocate for restricting their use. The consequences are fatal if you're not seen and drivers should slow down if they are struggling to see (or get to the optician ASAP).
I try to run at least one flashing and one constant front and rear. Flashing to grab the attention, constant to make it easier to judge distance and speed. It doesn't help with the significant minority of drivers incapable of judging distances and speeds even in broad daylight but it's a start.
I once encountered a cyclist with only a flashing white light *at the back*. I saw him, fair enough, but it took me a while to work out his speed and direction, on an unlit windy country road. Can't imagine what he was thinking. Surely rear lights should be red.
I'm always shocked when I encounter cyclists at night with no lights and wearing dark clothes. Usually kids.
On this year's France cycling trip our sleeper train to Paris from Toulouse got cancelled. The only train we could get got us into Paris at midnight. Although we never planned to cycle at night we had lights just in case, but absolutely never expected to use them at midnight and in Paris. Fortunately we also had tape and attached them to our helmets. As it happened cycling in Paris at night is a damn sight safer than during the day.
The biggest problem with the flashing white light was that the cyclist was also wearing dark clothing. Initially it seemed that the cycle was approaching me on the wrong side of the road. I had to slow right down and wait for my brain to adjust.
Of course cyclists out at night with dark clothing and no lights are too frequent to be worth mentioning. And while I'm quite good at remembering to wear a bright T shirt when running, and taking a torch or head torch, I have realised that as a pedestrian I am not that easily seen, as I tend to go out in jeans and a dark blue fleece.
Sounds like it worked brilliantly for that cyclist. Noted.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Imagine the fuss about representation if only one in fifty actors in adverts were non white, and how much value would be given to the argument that it didn’t matter because they are just works of fiction that aren’t meant to be representative.
Then David Lammy or Diane Abbott mentions it, and is accused of racism by every virtue signaller in town
50% of ads feature black people - but 100% of populations in the UK feature black people (there's one population, sure, but it's the right comparison).
Neither of you has considered *how many* people there are in each advertisement.
The true comparison to the 4% figure is the probability that a single person in the collective population shown in the ads is black. The ads might, put together, be precisely representative, over-representative, or under-representative. I have no idea which is right.
I wrote a blog about a similar thing twelve years ago, the Midsomer Murders controversy, and the ratio being complained about was roughly accurate.
The biggest culprit is EastEnders, they really do under represent Black & Asian people. To be honest this is an argument against my point, because there hasn’t been outrage about it, which surprises me. Accuracy would involve completely changing the cast, storylines and ethos of the show, but it was originally meant to reflect the East End. As I’ve said before, I think the BBC don’t accurately portray the demographic because no one outside the M25 would believe it if the show was mainly Muslims speaking Urdu & Arabic
And what about the number of murders, suicides, divorces, accidents and deadly diseases? They aren't proportional either. Maybe it's just a TV show. And folk wouldn't watch if it was all getting up early, coming home late, grabbing a takeaway and having an early night. Because it's entertainment. Just as advertising is marketing. It isn't supposed to be realistic.
Well, you say that…
Wikipedia's description of the original producer of EastEnders objective reads;
"the show was to be about "everyday life" in the inner city "today" and regarded it as a "slice of life". Creator/producer Julia Smith declared that "We don't make life, we reflect it". She also said, "We decided to go for a realistic, fairly outspoken type of drama which could encompass stories about homosexuality, rape, unemployment, racial prejudice, etc., in a believable context. Above all, we wanted realism"."
And was probably true of certain areas of East London c. 1984. Just as Coronation Street was representative of bits of Salford in the early Sixties. Trouble is. It's a TV show. Folk don't want their favourite characters solving their financial issues by selling up their Walford terrace for a million and a half to buy a six bedroom house up North and go on half a dozen cruises a year while the old place is turned into an HMO for fourteen Romanian casual workers or an extended family from Gujurat and have to read subtitles.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
But are they?
As opposed to putting out adverts that shift the most breakfast cereal to the most customers?
Which is pretty cynical, but that's the advertising business for you.
If Roger is typical of the industry, then I'm not sure why we're surprised by anything that they turn out.
Do I take that as a compliment? One of the first commercials I shot was for British Telecom shops. The storyboard showed a family of three going into a British Telecom shop then looking around at phones. The soundtrack was''Let's go to the hop' changed obviously to 'shop'.
I cast a man a woman and a pink poodle and a black boy of about 12 who could really dance. All dressed like Teddy boys and girls. The Agency producer said he thought the client might not be happy. I said if they didn't like it ask whether the problem was the black boy. That would cure them of any hang ups if they had them.
None at all. they were delighted. That was 1987.Very rare at that time to have any black people in commercials. As a stills photographer doing fashion I shot lots but not on TV.
Apparently the Gripen is quite a lot cheaper per flying hour than is the Mig-29. And massively cheaper than (eg) the F35.
Ukraine plans to receive up to 250 new aircraft. These are the F-16, Gripen and Rafale, - Zelensky.
“I am conducting three parallel conversations about aircraft — with the Swedes, the French and the Americans. And the general request for the future of our combat aviation is a fleet of 250 new aircraft,” he noted.
The President added that Gripen is one of the priority aircraft for Ukraine. This is because the maintenance of these fighters is the cheapest, and they are also convenient in terms of using weapons. https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1983092432251064626
The Gripen was designed and marketed as cheap to buy, cheap to fly. Less capabilities than other jets of its generation.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
My main reservation about Labour (and I'm still chair of my CLP) is the negative bias - I largely agree, but I'm genuinely unsure what we are trying to achieve in the long term. The Greens don't seem to have seriously considered the choices of actual power, and still project themselves as a pressure group. Your Party? Maybe.
I don't understand why Labour doesn't introduce PR before the next election. Better to be in office as part of a coalition than not at all.
Hugely unpopular government unilaterally altering the way elections work might not necessarily go down well.
It also sets an abysmal precedent, especially given the lack of a manifesto commitment.
I would expect the Lords to block electoral reform without a manifesto commitment.
If Labour ever get round to it, you can expect HoL to block electoral reform with a manifesto commitment. HoL reform needs to have been started by now, voting age as well. Both will be dragged out as long as possible.
Hasn't the House of Lords been reformed up the wazoo? There's only 92 hereditary peers, and it sounds like the Lords overall does a damn good bread and butter job of going through line by line of the bills than the Commons does.
Are you under the impression that the rest are democratically elected?
It's full of political appointees, a lot of donors and some who just wanted the title. A system where Baroness Mone, Ledbedev, Ian Botham (not voted since July 2021) and numerous others are part of process is not fit for purpose. The minority of them who do turn up do seem to do a reasonable job of scrutinising legislation, but they could stand for election/appointment on their record.
Apparently the Gripen is quite a lot cheaper per flying hour than is the Mig-29. And massively cheaper than (eg) the F35.
Ukraine plans to receive up to 250 new aircraft. These are the F-16, Gripen and Rafale, - Zelensky.
“I am conducting three parallel conversations about aircraft — with the Swedes, the French and the Americans. And the general request for the future of our combat aviation is a fleet of 250 new aircraft,” he noted.
The President added that Gripen is one of the priority aircraft for Ukraine. This is because the maintenance of these fighters is the cheapest, and they are also convenient in terms of using weapons. https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1983092432251064626
The Gripen was designed and marketed as cheap to buy, cheap to fly. Less capabilities than other jets of its generation.
The GripenE is pretty deadly. That is what is being talked about being delivered to Ukraine.
Very cheap, when sanctioned Russian money is going to be releaed to buy them. Which is damned sweet...
According to Savils, the total value of ALL property in the UK is £9 trillion so a 1% cross the board tax on that would raise £90 billion which is decent.
On a 1% charge, I reckon the new property tax would be about double what we currently pay on Council Tax at Stodge Towers - for many others, it would be much more.
0.5% is reckoned to be equivalent to replacing Council Tax.
At those figures, I would be paying about the same as Council Tax now and the scheme would raise about £45 billion but that leaves the £15 billion or so from Stamp Duty. If you want to abolish that as well, you'd need a 0.75% figure.
The other question is if you take a property value as at, for example, 1st April 2027 as your starting point, how will you change the tax in future years - periodic revaluations (3 years) would seem best but I suspect the cop out will be some measure of house price inflation which won't take into account regional variations in property values.
You'd also need to look at land values with or without planning permission.
Take the last transacted value and increase by 2.5% a year for inflation (arbitrary figure but allows for certainty and an incentive for the government to keep inflation down!) and then reset every time the property changes hands.
You probably also need a measure where by people who bought the property in the last 5 years get to offset 1/5 of their stamp duty each year vs the tax - basically that means that anyone with a property under £925k gets to offset all of their stamp duty against the new tax, while people with higher value properties get a partial offset (but both have a 5 year tax holiday to avoid double taxation).
You should also add in capital gains tax on principal residences but with rollover relief so that it’s only money that you are taking out of your primary house that is taxable
Apparently the Gripen is quite a lot cheaper per flying hour than is the Mig-29. And massively cheaper than (eg) the F35.
Ukraine plans to receive up to 250 new aircraft. These are the F-16, Gripen and Rafale, - Zelensky.
“I am conducting three parallel conversations about aircraft — with the Swedes, the French and the Americans. And the general request for the future of our combat aviation is a fleet of 250 new aircraft,” he noted.
The President added that Gripen is one of the priority aircraft for Ukraine. This is because the maintenance of these fighters is the cheapest, and they are also convenient in terms of using weapons. https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1983092432251064626
The Gripen was designed and marketed as cheap to buy, cheap to fly. Less capabilities than other jets of its generation.
In some respects; superior in others. For example, it can tote a wider range of NATO weapons than any of the alternatives, which given Ukraine's heterogenous arms supplies, is quite important. (Note it can carry more of the RAF's missiles than can the RAF's F35s.) It's better integrated with the only airborne AEW that they have. It can operate better off crappy airstrips than the others.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
I'm really pleased that fewer adverts seem to be aimed at me. I hate people trying to sell me shit
I always think one should also think about how we evaluate whether an advert is good or not. Often the ones we think are good are ones we can't remember what they were for and the apparently crap one we do remember what they are for. The classic for this was the Cinzano and Martini ads. Both did apparently great ads but people could not tell you which was which.
To the consumer, the 'good' adverts are the really entertaining ones, but doesn't necessarily mean the product is memorable.
Yep. The Maisy (sp) perfume advert drives me crazy. I want to throw something at the TV and I am the last person the ad is aimed at, but I bloody well remember it.
The worst thing about that ad is that the girls (too young even for Trump) don't look like they have a brain cell between them. Utterly vacuous.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
But are they?
As opposed to putting out adverts that shift the most breakfast cereal to the most customers?
Which is pretty cynical, but that's the advertising business for you.
If Roger is typical of the industry, then I'm not sure why we're surprised by anything that they turn out.
Do I take that as a compliment? One of the first commercials I shot was for British Telecom shops. The storyboard showed a family of three going into a British Telecom shop then looking around at phones. The soundtrack was''Let's go to the hop' changed obviously to 'shop'.
I cast a man a woman and a pink poodle and a black boy of about 12 who could really dance. All dressed like Teddy boys and girls. The Agency producer said he thought the client might not be happy. I said if they didn't like it ask whether the problem was the black boy. That would cure them of any hang ups if they had them.
None at all. they were delighted. That was 1987.Very rare at that time to have any black people in commercials. As a stills photographer doing fashion I shot lots but not on TV.
I love your little insights and vignettes of an industry I know nothing about. Thanks fir sharing
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Yes, it's a problem for me too, but it includes those blinding flashing lights on bicycles. They should be illegal, but can't see anything being done about them.
In Germany they have specific rules about bike lights - we could have the same given they are often higher than car lights and some brands are approaching the same brightness - mine are 900 lumen versus 1,500 in my car.
But frankly the risk is much higher for the cyclist in not being seen, so there's no chance they'll try to restrict the lights.
Since 2005, flashing bicycle lights are permitted to be used as sole lights, provided the light flashes between 60 and 240 times per minute (1-4Hz).
I think in Germany it's more about beam direction.
Anyway, there is a live debate about what's safer - flashing lights or constant. The former last 10x longer on battery and in daytime running you definitely want flashing for long distance visibility.
I appreciate they cause some drivers issues but the number of times I've nearly been hit despite lights + high vis + reflectors means I would never advocate for restricting their use. The consequences are fatal if you're not seen and drivers should slow down if they are struggling to see (or get to the optician ASAP).
I try to run at least one flashing and one constant front and rear. Flashing to grab the attention, constant to make it easier to judge distance and speed. It doesn't help with the significant minority of drivers incapable of judging distances and speeds even in broad daylight but it's a start.
I once encountered a cyclist with only a flashing white light *at the back*. I saw him, fair enough, but it took me a while to work out his speed and direction, on an unlit windy country road. Can't imagine what he was thinking. Surely rear lights should be red.
I'm always shocked when I encounter cyclists at night with no lights and wearing dark clothes. Usually kids.
On this year's France cycling trip our sleeper train to Paris from Toulouse got cancelled. The only train we could get got us into Paris at midnight. Although we never planned to cycle at night we had lights just in case, but absolutely never expected to use them at midnight and in Paris. Fortunately we also had tape and attached them to our helmets. As it happened cycling in Paris at night is a damn sight safer than during the day.
The biggest problem with the flashing white light was that the cyclist was also wearing dark clothing. Initially it seemed that the cycle was approaching me on the wrong side of the road. I had to slow right down and wait for my brain to adjust.
Of course cyclists out at night with dark clothing and no lights are too frequent to be worth mentioning. And while I'm quite good at remembering to wear a bright T shirt when running, and taking a torch or head torch, I have realised that as a pedestrian I am not that easily seen, as I tend to go out in jeans and a dark blue fleece.
Sounds like it worked brilliantly for that cyclist. Noted.
I'm not sure that confusing the hell out of drivers is a good strategy
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
But are they?
As opposed to putting out adverts that shift the most breakfast cereal to the most customers?
Which is pretty cynical, but that's the advertising business for you.
If Roger is typical of the industry, then I'm not sure why we're surprised by anything that they turn out.
Do I take that as a compliment? One of the first commercials I shot was for British Telecom shops. The storyboard showed a family of three going into a British Telecom shop then looking around at phones. The soundtrack was''Let's go to the hop' changed obviously to 'shop'.
I cast a man a woman and a pink poodle and a black boy of about 12 who could really dance. All dressed like Teddy boys and girls. The Agency producer said he thought the client might not be happy. I said if they didn't like it ask whether the problem was the black boy. That would cure them of any hang ups if they had them.
None at all. they were delighted. That was 1987.Very rare at that time to have any black people in commercials. As a stills photographer doing fashion I shot lots but not on TV.
I love your little insights and vignettes of an industry I know nothing about. Thanks fir sharing
I'm not holding my breath, but I do hope that those who are concerned about the over-representation of black and Asian people in adverts are equally concerned by the over-representation of the same groups in crime reporting in the popular press.
To take the Mail as an example, though they are not alone, they only seem interested in reporting on crimes committed by non-white people, ideally asylum seekers, with any Muslims a close second favourite. Scanning the press, one would get the impression that the white British majority have almost given up committing crimes, particularly those where women or young girls are the victims. Sadly, they haven't.
Apparently the Gripen is quite a lot cheaper per flying hour than is the Mig-29. And massively cheaper than (eg) the F35.
Ukraine plans to receive up to 250 new aircraft. These are the F-16, Gripen and Rafale, - Zelensky.
“I am conducting three parallel conversations about aircraft — with the Swedes, the French and the Americans. And the general request for the future of our combat aviation is a fleet of 250 new aircraft,” he noted.
The President added that Gripen is one of the priority aircraft for Ukraine. This is because the maintenance of these fighters is the cheapest, and they are also convenient in terms of using weapons. https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1983092432251064626
The Gripen was designed and marketed as cheap to buy, cheap to fly. Less capabilities than other jets of its generation.
The GripenE is pretty deadly. That is what is being talked about being delivered to Ukraine.
Very cheap, when sanctioned Russian money is going to be releaed to buy them. Which is damned sweet...
The Gripen can mount Meteor, which (IIRC) has a much greater range than any of the AA missiles that the F16 can mount.
Pushing back Russian jets carrying glide bombs another 50km back from the front will make a significant difference I suspect.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
My main reservation about Labour (and I'm still chair of my CLP) is the negative bias - I largely agree, but I'm genuinely unsure what we are trying to achieve in the long term. The Greens don't seem to have seriously considered the choices of actual power, and still project themselves as a pressure group. Your Party? Maybe.
I don't understand why Labour doesn't introduce PR before the next election. Better to be in office as part of a coalition than not at all.
Hugely unpopular government unilaterally altering the way elections work might not necessarily go down well.
It also sets an abysmal precedent, especially given the lack of a manifesto commitment.
I would expect the Lords to block electoral reform without a manifesto commitment.
If Labour ever get round to it, you can expect HoL to block electoral reform with a manifesto commitment. HoL reform needs to have been started by now, voting age as well. Both will be dragged out as long as possible.
Hasn't the House of Lords been reformed up the wazoo? There's only 92 hereditary peers, and it sounds like the Lords overall does a damn good bread and butter job of going through line by line of the bills than the Commons does.
Are you under the impression that the rest are democratically elected?
It's full of political appointees, a lot of donors and some who just wanted the title. A system where Baroness Mone, Ledbedev, Ian Botham (not voted since July 2021) and numerous others are part of process is not fit for purpose. The minority of them who do turn up do seem to do a reasonable job of scrutinising legislation, but they could stand for election/appointment on their record.
A system where [insert name of pretty dreadful MPs here] is not fit for the purpose.
I see Zarah Sultana has said the quiet part out loud.
Perhaps more detail would be helpful?
Doubled down on her ”we shouldn’t be sending arms to Ukraine because arms manufacture is taking food from the mouths of the poor” position. Oh, and we should pull out of NATO as well, obviously:
I'm not holding my breath, but I do hope that those who are concerned about the over-representation of black and Asian people in adverts are equally concerned by the over-representation of the same groups in crime reporting in the popular press.
To take the Mail as an example, though they are not alone, they only seem interested in reporting on crimes committed by non-white people, ideally asylum seekers, with any Muslims a close second favourite. Scanning the press, one would get the impression that the white British majority have almost given up committing crimes, particularly those where women or young girls are the victims. Sadly, they haven't.
This is partly a notability issue. It's one of the differences between Ireland and Britain that is really noticeable in the news.
In Ireland the population is small enough that every murder is reported in the national news. In Britain it's only unusual murders that make it to the national news. And so, because people only hear about unusual murders, they have a skewed sense of what is normal about murder.
Danny Kruger currently doing a HUGE amount of mansplaining on R4 about what Ms Pochin actually meant.
Care to precis?
Pochin's words were bad, deeply offensive, wrong, but not racist. Tbf Nick Robinson tried to pin 'preparing for government' Dan down to what was so bad about the words if they were not racist, but got a lot of argle, bargle, fargle in return.
I thought Nick Robinson was particularly good today. Not that it was too challenging. Why he didn't just hold up his hands and say 'Ok we've got an iredeemable racist in the Party. What can I do. I'm not the leader'
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
But are they?
As opposed to putting out adverts that shift the most breakfast cereal to the most customers?
Which is pretty cynical, but that's the advertising business for you.
If Roger is typical of the industry, then I'm not sure why we're surprised by anything that they turn out.
Do I take that as a compliment? One of the first commercials I shot was for British Telecom shops. The storyboard showed a family of three going into a British Telecom shop then looking around at phones. The soundtrack was''Let's go to the hop' changed obviously to 'shop'.
I cast a man a woman and a pink poodle and a black boy of about 12 who could really dance. All dressed like Teddy boys and girls. The Agency producer said he thought the client might not be happy. I said if they didn't like it ask whether the problem was the black boy. That would cure them of any hang ups if they had them.
None at all. they were delighted. That was 1987.Very rare at that time to have any black people in commercials. As a stills photographer doing fashion I shot lots but not on TV.
Just as an observation.
It's pretty clear that you make the ads that you like, not ads which are subject to box ticking analysis. And PBers who been around for more than about five minutes will know that you are a person of idiosyncratic taste.
Advertising standards are a matter for the regulator; anything beyond that is really beside the point.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
Not really. It’s just advertisers wanting to make sure that all their potential customers are represented. The same people who care about this are the same people who think that peak oppression is that golliwogs are no longer ok.
I've kept out oof this because its a topic in which all opinions are wilfully misinterpreted. The crime she has committed is noticing. Dont be under any illusions that activist groups havent been counting. It's what they do, they count and they count. They enter organisations through DEI, through external consulting and the shake down begins "it's a nice company you have here, it would be a shame if anything happened to it".
The only thing the Reform MP did was notice the cultural revolution that has been happening.
I have some very modest insights into the casting process because my daughter has an agent and is occasionally considered for advertising roles. She is mixed race so you'd think she should be in every ad going as part of the cultural Marxist assault on British values via the medium of Domino's adverts, but no, she hasn't appeared in any. From conversations with her agent I know that there has probably been a bit of a fad for casting non-white actors (ie my daughter's ethnically ambiguous look is 'in' currently) but I am somewhat doubtful that this is more than a passing fad borne of white guilt (especially as putting minority 'talent' on screen can deflect from the lack of diversity behind the camera). I also know that the media industry like a lot of things is heavily concentrated in and around London, so the pool of available actors skews non white a lot more than elsewhere in the UK (I can see this from the other children at the agency). Also, London creatives' idea of what is 'normal' will be dictated by what they see around them. Just as someone who lives in eg Lincolnshire will have their perception skewed in the opposite direction. But I suspect the main reason you see a lot of mixed race families especially in ads is that the firm is trying to appeal to as broad a range of people as possible. It is a commercially driven decision. As someone who is actually a member of a mixed race family I find it disturbing in the extreme that there are people out there who find it triggering to see families like mine on their TV screen. Are we not an example of the 'integration' they claim to want to see? What is it about us that these people find so threatening? Would we be safe if people like this were in power? I am not sure.
I see Zarah Sultana has said the quiet part out loud.
Perhaps more detail would be helpful?
Doubled down on her ”we shouldn’t be sending arms to Ukraine because arms manufacture is taking food from the mouths of the poor” position. Oh, and we should pull out of NATO as well, obviously:
I see Zarah Sultana has said the quiet part out loud.
Perhaps more detail would be helpful?
Doubled down on her ”we shouldn’t be sending arms to Ukraine because arms manufacture is taking food from the mouths of the poor” position. Oh, and we should pull out of NATO as well, obviously:
I see Zarah Sultana has said the quiet part out loud.
Perhaps more detail would be helpful?
Doubled down on her ”we shouldn’t be sending arms to Ukraine because arms manufacture is taking food from the mouths of the poor” position. Oh, and we should pull out of NATO as well, obviously:
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Imagine the fuss about representation if only one in fifty actors in adverts were non white, and how much value would be given to the argument that it didn’t matter because they are just works of fiction that aren’t meant to be representative.
Then David Lammy or Diane Abbott mentions it, and is accused of racism by every virtue signaller in town
Imagine spending your time complaining that the percentage of white actors in adverts doesn’t precisely line up with the percentage of white people in rural Lincolnshire rather than, you know, real problems. Good grief.
What a boring fucker eh?
Ok who’s got any beefs with the local councils planning permission portals?
Whining about representation is only okay when it’s one way, it seems.
I see Zarah Sultana has said the quiet part out loud.
Perhaps more detail would be helpful?
Doubled down on her ”we shouldn’t be sending arms to Ukraine because arms manufacture is taking food from the mouths of the poor” position. Oh, and we should pull out of NATO as well, obviously:
She needs to check her Western European privilege and speak to people in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania about the value of NATO.
She's really not much different from the student Marxists and Trots I recall from the early 80s who were still convinced of the superiority of the Soviet system.
Honestly I suspect why anyone should CARE about the number of black people in ads. If black people want to make as much tits of themselves as white people singing about Tesco Clubcard in a random street, why shouldn't they?
Not sure that many do.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
Not really. It’s just advertisers wanting to make sure that all their potential customers are represented. The same people who care about this are the same people who think that peak oppression is that golliwogs are no longer ok.
I've kept out oof this because its a topic in which all opinions are wilfully misinterpreted. The crime she has committed is noticing. Dont be under any illusions that activist groups havent been counting. It's what they do, they count and they count. They enter organisations through DEI, through external consulting and the shake down begins "it's a nice company you have here, it would be a shame if anything happened to it".
The only thing the Reform MP did was notice the cultural revolution that has been happening.
I have some very modest insights into the casting process because my daughter has an agent and is occasionally considered for advertising roles. She is mixed race so you'd think she should be in every ad going as part of the cultural Marxist assault on British values via the medium of Domino's adverts, but no, she hasn't appeared in any. From conversations with her agent I know that there has probably been a bit of a fad for casting non-white actors (ie my daughter's ethnically ambiguous look is 'in' currently) but I am somewhat doubtful that this is more than a passing fad borne of white guilt (especially as putting minority 'talent' on screen can deflect from the lack of diversity behind the camera). I also know that the media industry like a lot of things is heavily concentrated in and around London, so the pool of available actors skews non white a lot more than elsewhere in the UK (I can see this from the other children at the agency). Also, London creatives' idea of what is 'normal' will be dictated by what they see around them. Just as someone who lives in eg Lincolnshire will have their perception skewed in the opposite direction. But I suspect the main reason you see a lot of mixed race families especially in ads is that the firm is trying to appeal to as broad a range of people as possible. It is a commercially driven decision. As someone who is actually a member of a mixed race family I find it disturbing in the extreme that there are people out there who find it triggering to see families like mine on their TV screen. Are we not an example of the 'integration' they claim to want to see? What is it about us that these people find so threatening? Would we be safe if people like this were in power? I am not sure.
God those fucking Domino’s adverts piss me off. I generally avoid ads but those you can’t avoid as they seem to sponsor some stuff on TV.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
Foot was a democrat, yes.
I would not be confident that a government led by Your Party would uphold democracy.
WRT Farage/Trump, I think that the latter is obviously willing to threaten violence against opponents, and to overturn constitutional norms. Farage is more of a Captain Mainwaring/Colonel Blimp-type character.
Comments
Neither of you has considered *how many* people there are in each advertisement [edit: apart ftom isam's suggestion, apols.]
The true comparison to the 4% figure is the probability that a single person in the collective population shown in the ads is black. The ads might, put together, be precisely representative, over-representative, or under-representative. I have no idea which is right.
Edit: as also noted by Pulpy and kjh.
The comparison is also not comparing like for like. Nearly all adverts contain multiple people therefore comparing the number of adverts containing black people to the number of black people in the population is also irrational. Having said that it is still out of proportion, but for the reasons given above.
It is all driven by profit not woke.
Except for 2019, which was a choice between different flavours of disastrous.
The biggest culprit is EastEnders, they really do under represent Black & Asian people. To be honest this is an argument against my point, because there hasn’t been outrage about it, which surprises me. Accuracy would involve completely changing the cast, storylines and ethos of the show, but it was originally meant to reflect the East End. As I’ve said before, I think the BBC don’t accurately portray the demographic because no one outside the M25 would believe it if the show was mainly Muslims speaking Urdu & Arabic
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.com/2014/11/is-eastenders-more-racist-than.html
It also sets an abysmal precedent, especially given the lack of a manifesto commitment.
They aren't proportional either.
Maybe it's just a TV show.
And folk wouldn't watch if it was all getting up early, coming home late, grabbing a takeaway and having an early night.
Because it's entertainment. Just as advertising is marketing.
It isn't supposed to be realistic.
It's good first effort but isn't ready for primetime. It'll be interesting to see who ends up using it as a datasource.
What many DO care about is this that those who commission and make the adverts deciding who should be in them based on the colour of their skin.
It is cynical and sickening.
As opposed to putting out adverts that shift the most breakfast cereal to the most customers?
Which is pretty cynical, but that's the advertising business for you.
Ok who’s got any beefs with the local councils planning permission portals?
Also, are Corbyn and Foot even roughly equivalent ?
Or indeed Trump and Farage ?
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/meso_band.php?sat=G19&lat=18N&lon=76W&band=13&length=120&dim=1
Looks like there might be an eyewall replacement imminent but there's still a clear central eye for the time being.
The slow speed is going to be the real killer - 1/2m of rain is not funny.
I expect we'll get the remnants (the rain, mostly) in about a week or two.
Wikipedia's description of the original producer of EastEnders objective reads;
"the show was to be about "everyday life" in the inner city "today" and regarded it as a "slice of life". Creator/producer Julia Smith declared that "We don't make life, we reflect it". She also said, "We decided to go for a realistic, fairly outspoken type of drama which could encompass stories about homosexuality, rape, unemployment, racial prejudice, etc., in a believable context. Above all, we wanted realism"."
And massively cheaper than (eg) the F35.
Ukraine plans to receive up to 250 new aircraft. These are the F-16, Gripen and Rafale, - Zelensky.
“I am conducting three parallel conversations about aircraft — with the Swedes, the French and the Americans. And the general request for the future of our combat aviation is a fleet of 250 new aircraft,” he noted.
The President added that Gripen is one of the priority aircraft for Ukraine. This is because the maintenance of these fighters is the cheapest, and they are also convenient in terms of using weapons.
https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1983092432251064626
The only thing the Reform MP did was notice the cultural revolution that has been happening.
Cuba after that, yes. It will lose some power crossing land and the atmospheric conditions will get slightly less favourable, but there will still be a lot of damage.
Then the Bahamas, but by then it will be more like a 'normal' hurricane rather than the catastrophic thing it is now.
I wasn't suggesting the groupings were equivalent but just putting them in the more left or more right ballpark. Farage and Trump aren't the same. Although I was around for both Foot and Corbyn I am not sure about them. Too far away from each other to make a comparison and I can't be bothered to check the details. Foot I definitely liked more and for whom I have more respect, although I wouldn't have wanted to be PM.
HoL reform needs to have been started by now, voting age as well.
Both will be dragged out as long as possible.
Danny Kruger’s interview this morning feels like a cautionary tale for Tory MPs thinking of defecting. He’s about to launch his grand new Reform policy and instead has to painfully blither that yes Sarah Pochin shouldn’t be suspended and what the difference is between racism and racist intent.
Of course cyclists out at night with dark clothing and no lights are too frequent to be worth mentioning. And while I'm quite good at remembering to wear a bright T shirt when running, and taking a torch or head torch, I have realised that as a pedestrian I am not that easily seen, as I tend to go out in jeans and a dark blue fleece.
Just as Coronation Street was representative of bits of Salford in the early Sixties.
Trouble is. It's a TV show.
Folk don't want their favourite characters solving their financial issues by selling up their Walford terrace for a million and a half to buy a six bedroom house up North and go on half a dozen cruises a year while the old place is turned into an HMO for fourteen Romanian casual workers or an extended family from Gujurat and have to read subtitles.
I cast a man a woman and a pink poodle and a black boy of about 12 who could really dance. All dressed like Teddy boys and girls. The Agency producer said he thought the client might not be happy. I said if they didn't like it ask whether the problem was the black boy. That would cure them of any hang ups if they had them.
None at all. they were delighted. That was 1987.Very rare at that time to have any black people in commercials. As a stills photographer doing fashion I shot lots but not on TV.
It's full of political appointees, a lot of donors and some who just wanted the title.
A system where Baroness Mone, Ledbedev, Ian Botham (not voted since July 2021) and numerous others are part of process is not fit for purpose.
The minority of them who do turn up do seem to do a reasonable job of scrutinising legislation, but they could stand for election/appointment on their record.
Very cheap, when sanctioned Russian money is going to be releaed to buy them. Which is damned sweet...
You probably also need a measure where by people who bought the property in the last 5 years get to offset 1/5 of their stamp duty each year vs the tax - basically that means that anyone with a property under £925k gets to offset all of their stamp duty against the new tax, while people with higher value properties get a partial offset (but both have a 5 year tax holiday to avoid double taxation).
You should also add in capital gains tax on principal residences but with rollover relief so that it’s only money that you are taking out of your primary house that is taxable
For example, it can tote a wider range of NATO weapons than any of the alternatives, which given Ukraine's heterogenous arms supplies, is quite important.
(Note it can carry more of the RAF's missiles than can the RAF's F35s.)
It's better integrated with the only airborne AEW that they have.
It can operate better off crappy airstrips than the others.
Etc
To take the Mail as an example, though they are not alone, they only seem interested in reporting on crimes committed by non-white people, ideally asylum seekers, with any Muslims a close second favourite. Scanning the press, one would get the impression that the white British majority have almost given up committing crimes, particularly those where women or young girls are the victims. Sadly, they haven't.
Pushing back Russian jets carrying glide bombs another 50km back from the front will make a significant difference I suspect.
https://x.com/zarahsultana/status/1982956693077025148
https://x.com/zarahsultana/status/1983128466233958801
In Ireland the population is small enough that every murder is reported in the national news. In Britain it's only unusual murders that make it to the national news. And so, because people only hear about unusual murders, they have a skewed sense of what is normal about murder.
It's pretty clear that you make the ads that you like, not ads which are subject to box ticking analysis.
And PBers who been around for more than about five minutes will know that you are a person of idiosyncratic taste.
Advertising standards are a matter for the regulator; anything beyond that is really beside the point.
From conversations with her agent I know that there has probably been a bit of a fad for casting non-white actors (ie my daughter's ethnically ambiguous look is 'in' currently) but I am somewhat doubtful that this is more than a passing fad borne of white guilt (especially as putting minority 'talent' on screen can deflect from the lack of diversity behind the camera). I also know that the media industry like a lot of things is heavily concentrated in and around London, so the pool of available actors skews non white a lot more than elsewhere in the UK (I can see this from the other children at the agency). Also, London creatives' idea of what is 'normal' will be dictated by what they see around them. Just as someone who lives in eg Lincolnshire will have their perception skewed in the opposite direction.
But I suspect the main reason you see a lot of mixed race families especially in ads is that the firm is trying to appeal to as broad a range of people as possible. It is a commercially driven decision.
As someone who is actually a member of a mixed race family I find it disturbing in the extreme that there are people out there who find it triggering to see families like mine on their TV screen. Are we not an example of the 'integration' they claim to want to see? What is it about us that these people find so threatening? Would we be safe if people like this were in power? I am not sure.
https://www.classicboat.co.uk/news/call-for-bame-sailing-officials/
(Does this count as a struggle session?)
I would not be confident that a government led by Your Party would uphold democracy.
WRT Farage/Trump, I think that the latter is obviously willing to threaten violence against opponents, and to overturn constitutional norms. Farage is more of a Captain Mainwaring/Colonel Blimp-type character.