The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
We've discussed this before. I don't think it was a response to Floyd, I've noticed it for many years. In reality it's advertisers trying to hit all the potential shoppers. I do agree that it gives a very false view of modern Britain. And that may well skew perceptions of how much immigration has occured.
It definitely turbocharged post Floyd.
Remember: there was a weird time for a few weeks where they took Fawlty Towers off streaming.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Oh no it hasn't.
Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧 @TRobinsonNewEra · 4h If they won’t do it, we will make the noise on X ourselves to take the knee.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Oh no it hasn't.
Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧 @TRobinsonNewEra · 4h If they won’t do it, we will make the noise on X ourselves to take the knee.
The Greens under Zack attack ate their lunch. They’re dead.
And when Burnham wins Labour pivots left and kills the greens surge. Just look at the Compass twitter feed for what to expect
How long before the Greens split?
Not long IMHO
When Burnham wins the leadership and pivots left the Corbynite hard left will go back to Labour and that will leave the environment loving NIMBY brigade
Quite where it leaves Zack remains to be seen
Are parties doing well less likely to split? Why split when you’re winning?
That said, Reform did see splits while they were doing well, but those were driven by interpersonal tensions between Farage and others.
Your Party aren’t winning and, aside from a few inner city areas, neither are the Greens.
I suspect when Burnham pivots left Greens on the left will go back.
Your Party aren't winning, but the Greens are doing better than they have ever done before. Most MPs ever. Most local councillors ever. Most directly-elected mayors ever. Most councils led ever. Most Senedd members ever. Equal most London Assembly members ever. Most MSPs ever (although they're a separate party). Highest polling ever.
Their polling numbers have fallen back.
As for the rest. It could be peak green. We will see.
Their polling numbers have fallen back a bit. They are still above any polling they received before this year, aren't they? Maybe it's peak Green, and I wouldn't mind if it was, but I think they're generally pretty happy within the party at the moment.
Just watched the Reform candidate for Makerfield. They've got to be joking haven't they? He was interviewed by Chris Mason and though only two or three minutes he was a car crash. Farage must have been squirming.
Farage's despicable racially charged commentary on the murder of Henry Novak despite Mark Novak, Henry's father pleading with politicians not to turn this tragedy into a racial witch hunt against non whites. Of course Farage went in with his boots on to stir a hornets nest of outrage. One expects such a disgusting manipulation from Farage, but Philp charged in despite Badenoch earlier, and quite impressively I thought cautioning of Farage's racist opportunism.
So why was George Floyd politicised?
It was a murder by an officer of the state, not simply a criminal.
That is political.
The equivalent in the UK is not Digwa, but Sarah Everard.
That's a very poor analogy. Sarah Everard was murdered by a sick bastard who happened to be a policeman and used that for his crime. Floyd was killed while being arrested by a policeman attempting to do his job.
Everard was murdered by a sick bastard who was a Policeman who used that for his crime, agreed. Floyd was murdered by a sick bastard who was a Policeman who used that for his crime.
No part of "doing his job" was done in that murder. It was murder, plain and simple, for which he was rightly found guilty.
I disagree. Sarah Everard s murderer set out to find, abduct and murder a woman. That was not how the George Floyd case happened.
I see Kent County Councillors have decided the National Anthem will be sung at the end of their meetings (presumably just full Council meetings). Essex, on the other hand, are going to play the National Anthem (to spare us all the dubious vocal qualities of the Councillors) atn the start of the meetings.
When I was in local Government, there were always prayers before the opening of full Council meetings - I don't know if the Lord's Prayer was specifically one of those spoken - I once saw it mistyped as Lords' Prayer ironically during a test series against the Aussies - but there was always prayers from which any Councillor could excuse themselves.
My London council, it was always up to that year’s mayor, and over the years we had chaplains of all flavours, Muslim imams, Jewish rabbis, Sikh religious leaders; one year we even had Zoroastrian wailing before council meetings, and another year a humanist.
The Greens under Zack attack ate their lunch. They’re dead.
And when Burnham wins Labour pivots left and kills the greens surge. Just look at the Compass twitter feed for what to expect
How long before the Greens split?
Not long IMHO
When Burnham wins the leadership and pivots left the Corbynite hard left will go back to Labour and that will leave the environment loving NIMBY brigade
Quite where it leaves Zack remains to be seen
Are parties doing well less likely to split? Why split when you’re winning?
That said, Reform did see splits while they were doing well, but those were driven by interpersonal tensions between Farage and others.
Your Party aren’t winning and, aside from a few inner city areas, neither are the Greens.
I suspect when Burnham pivots left Greens on the left will go back.
Your Party aren't winning, but the Greens are doing better than they have ever done before. Most MPs ever. Most local councillors ever. Most directly-elected mayors ever. Most councils led ever. Most Senedd members ever. Equal most London Assembly members ever. Most MSPs ever (although they're a separate party). Highest polling ever.
Their polling numbers have fallen back.
As for the rest. It could be peak green. We will see.
Their polling numbers have fallen back a bit. They are still above any polling they received before this year, aren't they? Maybe it's peak Green, and I wouldn't mind if it was, but I think they're generally pretty happy within the party at the moment.
Just watched the Reform candidate for Makerfield. They've got to be joking haven't they? He was interviewed by Chris Mason and though only two or three minutes he was a car crash. Farage must have been squirming.
Farage's despicable racially charged commentary on the murder of Henry Novak despite Mark Novak, Henry's father pleading with politicians not to turn this tragedy into a racial witch hunt against non whites. Of course Farage went in with his boots on to stir a hornets nest of outrage. One expects such a disgusting manipulation from Farage, but Philp charged in despite Badenoch earlier, and quite impressively I thought cautioning of Farage's racist opportunism.
You seem to be more outraged by Farage than by Digwa?
I would be interested to learn who agrees with you that I am an apologist for Digwa. I believe you were being unnecessarily impish with this post.
I go off gardening and miss an interesting discussion.
On the Equality Act Act the position is really very simple.
Its aim is to prevent discrimination on various grounds. One of them is sex. But there are a number of exemptions. To fall within them you have to comply with the requirements of the particular exemption.
The Equlity Act does not mandate single sex loos or changing rooms for service providers such as shops. But if they want to provide them then these must be divided by sex, as has always been clear - at least to those who bothered to read and understand the law and cases, rather than to activists, and this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
But as per @Phil - "Yes - I should have added that any split M+S makes has to be justifiable under the Equality Act. Which is of course why so many of these places are implementing gender neutral changing - they hope it will enable them to avoid the entire controversy." service providers doing this will not avoid controversy because a failure to provide sex specific spaces can amount to direct or indirect sex discrimination. There have already been legal cases saying this - the Earl Shilton case, for instance. So service providers would be wise to provide male only and female only facilities as well as a unisex one if they wish.
@Phil's rather contemptuous reference to GenCrit crowd is pathetic.
First, he seems to think that women should put up with indirect discrimination. No. Why should they?
Second there are good reasons why gender neutral or mixed sex facilities are disliked by women. They increase the risk of sexual assaults from voyeurism upwards as the police have warned and as has been shown every time mixed sex facilities replace single sex ones. See recent reports re unisex facilities at sports and swimming centres. They don't want to take the risk of a hidden camera having been placed there and their intimate activities being viewed and shared.
Third, women don't want to use seats men have pissed or wanked on. Or walk on floors which are pissy. They don't want to be a cubicle next to a man having a wank - and yes this has happened. They don't want men around when they are cleaning up after heavy bleeding and / or diarrhoea during menstruation or if they have fibroids or as can happen at the menopause or if they have a miscarriage etc. They don't want to see men rooting around sanitary bins taking used pads which they the men will use to pretend they too are having "periods". This is a fetish for some "trans" identified men. They boast about it.
Fourth they don't want to be forced to see men who are strangers naked or in any state of undress in a public place. Why should they?
It is not just about safety. It is about dignity and privacy.
The Greens under Zack attack ate their lunch. They’re dead.
And when Burnham wins Labour pivots left and kills the greens surge. Just look at the Compass twitter feed for what to expect
How long before the Greens split?
Not long IMHO
When Burnham wins the leadership and pivots left the Corbynite hard left will go back to Labour and that will leave the environment loving NIMBY brigade
Quite where it leaves Zack remains to be seen
Are parties doing well less likely to split? Why split when you’re winning?
That said, Reform did see splits while they were doing well, but those were driven by interpersonal tensions between Farage and others.
Your Party aren’t winning and, aside from a few inner city areas, neither are the Greens.
I suspect when Burnham pivots left Greens on the left will go back.
Your Party aren't winning, but the Greens are doing better than they have ever done before. Most MPs ever. Most local councillors ever. Most directly-elected mayors ever. Most councils led ever. Most Senedd members ever. Equal most London Assembly members ever. Most MSPs ever (although they're a separate party). Highest polling ever.
Their polling numbers have fallen back.
As for the rest. It could be peak green. We will see.
Their polling numbers have fallen back a bit. They are still above any polling they received before this year, aren't they? Maybe it's peak Green, and I wouldn't mind if it was, but I think they're generally pretty happy within the party at the moment.
Just watched the Reform candidate for Makerfield. They've got to be joking haven't they? He was interviewed by Chris Mason and though only two or three minutes he was a car crash. Farage must have been squirming.
Farage's despicable racially charged commentary on the murder of Henry Novak despite Mark Novak, Henry's father pleading with politicians not to turn this tragedy into a racial witch hunt against non whites. Of course Farage went in with his boots on to stir a hornets nest of outrage. One expects such a disgusting manipulation from Farage, but Philp charged in despite Badenoch earlier, and quite impressively I thought cautioning of Farage's racist opportunism.
You seem to be more outraged by Farage than by Digwa?
I addressed you before when you accused me of supporting Digwa.
And as a father I have no sympathy whatsoever with the murderous bastard who without any compassion stabbed a young lad six times. I also think the police officer who made a career defining error of judgement deserves no sympathy either
However there is a special place in hell for a politician who seees an opportunity within a heartbreaking tragedy*. Despicable.
See also the Farage Southport Riots.
Farage has given a perfectly reasonable summary of the deplorable incident.
No he hasn't. He has been particularly disingenuous and has tried to make a tragedy into a political opportunity for himself. Much as he did over Southport.
I wonder if he gets some riots over the weekend. It will help out in the Makerfield by election.
The Greens under Zack attack ate their lunch. They’re dead.
And when Burnham wins Labour pivots left and kills the greens surge. Just look at the Compass twitter feed for what to expect
How long before the Greens split?
Not long IMHO
When Burnham wins the leadership and pivots left the Corbynite hard left will go back to Labour and that will leave the environment loving NIMBY brigade
Quite where it leaves Zack remains to be seen
Are parties doing well less likely to split? Why split when you’re winning?
That said, Reform did see splits while they were doing well, but those were driven by interpersonal tensions between Farage and others.
Your Party aren’t winning and, aside from a few inner city areas, neither are the Greens.
I suspect when Burnham pivots left Greens on the left will go back.
Your Party aren't winning, but the Greens are doing better than they have ever done before. Most MPs ever. Most local councillors ever. Most directly-elected mayors ever. Most councils led ever. Most Senedd members ever. Equal most London Assembly members ever. Most MSPs ever (although they're a separate party). Highest polling ever.
Their polling numbers have fallen back.
As for the rest. It could be peak green. We will see.
Their polling numbers have fallen back a bit. They are still above any polling they received before this year, aren't they? Maybe it's peak Green, and I wouldn't mind if it was, but I think they're generally pretty happy within the party at the moment.
Just watched the Reform candidate for Makerfield. They've got to be joking haven't they? He was interviewed by Chris Mason and though only two or three minutes he was a car crash. Farage must have been squirming.
Farage's despicable racially charged commentary on the murder of Henry Novak despite Mark Novak, Henry's father pleading with politicians not to turn this tragedy into a racial witch hunt against non whites. Of course Farage went in with his boots on to stir a hornets nest of outrage. One expects such a disgusting manipulation from Farage, but Philp charged in despite Badenoch earlier, and quite impressively I thought cautioning of Farage's racist opportunism.
So why was George Floyd politicised?
It was a murder by an officer of the state, not simply a criminal.
That is political.
The equivalent in the UK is not Digwa, but Sarah Everard.
That's a very poor analogy. Sarah Everard was murdered by a sick bastard who happened to be a policeman and used that for his crime. Floyd was killed while being arrested by a policeman attempting to do his job.
Everard was murdered by a sick bastard who was a Policeman who used that for his crime, agreed. Floyd was murdered by a sick bastard who was a Policeman who used that for his crime.
No part of "doing his job" was done in that murder. It was murder, plain and simple, for which he was rightly found guilty.
I disagree. Sarah Everard s murderer set out to find, abduct and murder a woman. That was not how the George Floyd case happened.
No, it happened by a murderer callously kneeling on someone's neck until they died.
Different method but cold murder by a Police Officer abusing their authority either way.
The Greens under Zack attack ate their lunch. They’re dead.
And when Burnham wins Labour pivots left and kills the greens surge. Just look at the Compass twitter feed for what to expect
How long before the Greens split?
Not long IMHO
When Burnham wins the leadership and pivots left the Corbynite hard left will go back to Labour and that will leave the environment loving NIMBY brigade
Quite where it leaves Zack remains to be seen
Are parties doing well less likely to split? Why split when you’re winning?
That said, Reform did see splits while they were doing well, but those were driven by interpersonal tensions between Farage and others.
Your Party aren’t winning and, aside from a few inner city areas, neither are the Greens.
I suspect when Burnham pivots left Greens on the left will go back.
Your Party aren't winning, but the Greens are doing better than they have ever done before. Most MPs ever. Most local councillors ever. Most directly-elected mayors ever. Most councils led ever. Most Senedd members ever. Equal most London Assembly members ever. Most MSPs ever (although they're a separate party). Highest polling ever.
Their polling numbers have fallen back.
As for the rest. It could be peak green. We will see.
Their polling numbers have fallen back a bit. They are still above any polling they received before this year, aren't they? Maybe it's peak Green, and I wouldn't mind if it was, but I think they're generally pretty happy within the party at the moment.
Just watched the Reform candidate for Makerfield. They've got to be joking haven't they? He was interviewed by Chris Mason and though only two or three minutes he was a car crash. Farage must have been squirming.
Farage's despicable racially charged commentary on the murder of Henry Novak despite Mark Novak, Henry's father pleading with politicians not to turn this tragedy into a racial witch hunt against non whites. Of course Farage went in with his boots on to stir a hornets nest of outrage. One expects such a disgusting manipulation from Farage, but Philp charged in despite Badenoch earlier, and quite impressively I thought cautioning of Farage's racist opportunism.
You seem to be more outraged by Farage than by Digwa?
I would be interested to learn who agrees with you that I am an apologist for Digwa. I believe you were being unnecessarily impish with this post.
A racist like you talking down to an Asian bloke like me.
I go off gardening and miss an interesting discussion.
On the Equality Act Act the position is really very simple.
Its aim is to prevent discrimination on various grounds. One of them is sex. But there are a number of exemptions. To fall within them you have to comply with the requirements of the particular exemption.
The Equlity Act does not mandate single sex loos or changing rooms for service providers such as shops. But if they want to provide them then these must be divided by sex, as has always been clear - at least to those who bothered to read and understand the law and cases, rather than to activists, and this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
But as per @Phil - "Yes - I should have added that any split M+S makes has to be justifiable under the Equality Act. Which is of course why so many of these places are implementing gender neutral changing - they hope it will enable them to avoid the entire controversy." service providers doing this will not avoid controversy because a failure to provide sex specific spaces can amount to direct or indirect sex discrimination. There have already been legal cases saying this - the Earl Shilton case, for instance. So service providers would be wise to provide male only and female only facilities as well as a unisex one if they wish.
@Phil's rather contemptuous reference to GenCrit crowd is pathetic.
First, he seems to think that women should put up with indirect discrimination. No. Why should they?
Second there are good reasons why gender neutral or mixed sex facilities are disliked by women. They increase the risk of sexual assaults from voyeurism upwards as the police have warned and as has been shown every time mixed sex facilities replace single sex ones. See recent reports re unisex facilities at sports and swimming centres. They don't want to take the risk of a hidden camera having been placed there and their intimate activities being viewed nd shred.
Third, women don't want to use seats men have pissed or wanked on. Or walk on floors which are pissy. They don't want to be a cubicle next to a man having a wank - and yes this has happened. They don't want men around when they are cleaning up after heavy bleeding and / or diarrhoea during menstruation or if they have fibroids or as can happen at the menopause or if they have a miscarriage etc. They don't want to see men rooting around sanitary bins taking used pads which they the men will use to pretend they too are having "periods". This is a fetish for some "trans" identified men. They boast about it.
Fourth they don't want to be forced to see men who are strangers naked or in any state of undress in a public place. Why should they?
It is not just about safety. It is about dignity and privacy.
As for girls, ask schoolgirls how they feel about having to share toilets with boys during puberty, when they are having their periods. They hate it. Recent opinion polls show that a majority of all ages and both sexes believe that there should be single sex facilities. This is not a generational divide.
If those very few men who have had surgery don't want to use men's loos (why aren't cubicles in the mens sufficient?) they can use gender neutral ones. There is no reason to use women's spaces. Women's spaces and the women using them are not there to affirm men's feelings or delusions or identity. Those who demand this are showing that they fundamentally think of women as men's support animals. We aren't. If a man needs to force a woman to affirm his "identity" he doesn't have one, he has a neurosis.
Finally employers and schools have to provide single sex facilities. I think service providers should also have to. There is no good reason why women should have to depend on the kindness of strangers, particularly since there has been a movement over the last decade by a subset of men to be very determinedly unkind to women and deny them dignity, privacy and safety.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
I go off gardening and miss an interesting discussion.
On the Equality Act Act the position is really very simple.
Its aim is to prevent discrimination on various grounds. One of them is sex. But there are a number of exemptions. To fall within them you have to comply with the requirements of the particular exemption.
The Equlity Act does not mandate single sex loos or changing rooms for service providers such as shops. But if they want to provide them then these must be divided by sex, as has always been clear - at least to those who bothered to read and understand the law and cases, rather than to activists, and this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
But as per @Phil - "Yes - I should have added that any split M+S makes has to be justifiable under the Equality Act. Which is of course why so many of these places are implementing gender neutral changing - they hope it will enable them to avoid the entire controversy." service providers doing this will not avoid controversy because a failure to provide sex specific spaces can amount to direct or indirect sex discrimination. There have already been legal cases saying this - the Earl Shilton case, for instance. So service providers would be wise to provide male only and female only facilities as well as a unisex one if they wish.
@Phil's rather contemptuous reference to GenCrit crowd is pathetic.
First, he seems to think that women should put up with indirect discrimination. No. Why should they?
Second there are good reasons why gender neutral or mixed sex facilities are disliked by women. They increase the risk of sexual assaults from voyeurism upwards as the police have warned and as has been shown every time mixed sex facilities replace single sex ones. See recent reports re unisex facilities at sports and swimming centres. They don't want to take the risk of a hidden camera having been placed there and their intimate activities being viewed nd shred.
Third, women don't want to use seats men have pissed or wanked on. Or walk on floors which are pissy. They don't want to be a cubicle next to a man having a wank - and yes this has happened. They don't want men around when they are cleaning up after heavy bleeding and / or diarrhoea during menstruation or if they have fibroids or as can happen at the menopause or if they have a miscarriage etc. They don't want to see men rooting around sanitary bins taking used pads which they the men will use to pretend they too are having "periods". This is a fetish for some "trans" identified men. They boast about it.
Fourth they don't want to be forced to see men who are strangers naked or in any state of undress in a public place. Why should they?
It is not just about safety. It is about dignity and privacy.
As for girls, ask schoolgirls how they feel about having to share toilets with boys during puberty, when they are having their periods. They hate it. Recent opinion polls show that a majority of all ages and both sexes believe that there should be single sex facilities. This is not a generational divide.
If those very few men who have had surgery don't want to use men's loos (why aren't cubicles in the mens sufficient?) they can use gender neutral ones. There is no reason to use women's spaces. Women's spaces and the women using them are not there to affirm men's feelings or delusions or identity. Those who demand this are showing that they fundamentally think of women as men's support animals. We aren't. If a man needs to force a woman to affirm his "identity" he doesn't have one, he has a neurosis.
Finally employers and schools have to provide single sex facilities. I think service providers should also have to. There is no good reason why women should have to depend on the kindness of strangers, particularly since there has been a movement over the last decade by a subset of men to be very determinedly unkind to women and deny them dignity, privacy and safety.
On the final point, I don't think employers have to provide single sex facilities, though facilities not single-sex must be single-use lockable facilities. Which may come with problems, as you say in your comment, but are AFAIK legal.
Many small businesses I've been to or worked at have universal facilities. Sometimes only one to serve everybody who works there, if the business is small enough, which can be universal and lockable.
I do think if there are enough people then it might be reasonable to expect separate sex facilities and schools probably cross that threshold much more than a business which might only have a few employees.
I go off gardening and miss an interesting discussion.
On the Equality Act Act the position is really very simple.
Its aim is to prevent discrimination on various grounds. One of them is sex. But there are a number of exemptions. To fall within them you have to comply with the requirements of the particular exemption.
The Equlity Act does not mandate single sex loos or changing rooms for service providers such as shops. But if they want to provide them then these must be divided by sex, as has always been clear - at least to those who bothered to read and understand the law and cases, rather than to activists, and this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
But as per @Phil - "Yes - I should have added that any split M+S makes has to be justifiable under the Equality Act. Which is of course why so many of these places are implementing gender neutral changing - they hope it will enable them to avoid the entire controversy." service providers doing this will not avoid controversy because a failure to provide sex specific spaces can amount to direct or indirect sex discrimination. There have already been legal cases saying this - the Earl Shilton case, for instance. So service providers would be wise to provide male only and female only facilities as well as a unisex one if they wish.
@Phil's rather contemptuous reference to GenCrit crowd is pathetic.
First, he seems to think that women should put up with indirect discrimination. No. Why should they?
Second there are good reasons why gender neutral or mixed sex facilities are disliked by women. They increase the risk of sexual assaults from voyeurism upwards as the police have warned and as has been shown every time mixed sex facilities replace single sex ones. See recent reports re unisex facilities at sports and swimming centres. They don't want to take the risk of a hidden camera having been placed there and their intimate activities being viewed and shared.
Third, women don't want to use seats men have pissed or wanked on. Or walk on floors which are pissy. They don't want to be a cubicle next to a man having a wank - and yes this has happened. They don't want men around when they are cleaning up after heavy bleeding and / or diarrhoea during menstruation or if they have fibroids or as can happen at the menopause or if they have a miscarriage etc. They don't want to see men rooting around sanitary bins taking used pads which they the men will use to pretend they too are having "periods". This is a fetish for some "trans" identified men. They boast about it.
Fourth they don't want to be forced to see men who are strangers naked or in any state of undress in a public place. Why should they?
It is not just about safety. It is about dignity and privacy.
I go off gardening and miss an interesting discussion.
On the Equality Act Act the position is really very simple.
Its aim is to prevent discrimination on various grounds. One of them is sex. But there are a number of exemptions. To fall within them you have to comply with the requirements of the particular exemption.
The Equlity Act does not mandate single sex loos or changing rooms for service providers such as shops. But if they want to provide them then these must be divided by sex, as has always been clear - at least to those who bothered to read and understand the law and cases, rather than to activists, and this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
But as per @Phil - "Yes - I should have added that any split M+S makes has to be justifiable under the Equality Act. Which is of course why so many of these places are implementing gender neutral changing - they hope it will enable them to avoid the entire controversy." service providers doing this will not avoid controversy because a failure to provide sex specific spaces can amount to direct or indirect sex discrimination. There have already been legal cases saying this - the Earl Shilton case, for instance. So service providers would be wise to provide male only and female only facilities as well as a unisex one if they wish.
@Phil's rather contemptuous reference to GenCrit crowd is pathetic.
First, he seems to think that women should put up with indirect discrimination. No. Why should they?
Second there are good reasons why gender neutral or mixed sex facilities are disliked by women. They increase the risk of sexual assaults from voyeurism upwards as the police have warned and as has been shown every time mixed sex facilities replace single sex ones. See recent reports re unisex facilities at sports and swimming centres. They don't want to take the risk of a hidden camera having been placed there and their intimate activities being viewed and shared.
Third, women don't want to use seats men have pissed or wanked on. Or walk on floors which are pissy. They don't want to be a cubicle next to a man having a wank - and yes this has happened. They don't want men around when they are cleaning up after heavy bleeding and / or diarrhoea during menstruation or if they have fibroids or as can happen at the menopause or if they have a miscarriage etc. They don't want to see men rooting around sanitary bins taking used pads which they the men will use to pretend they too are having "periods". This is a fetish for some "trans" identified men. They boast about it.
Fourth they don't want to be forced to see men who are strangers naked or in any state of undress in a public place. Why should they?
It is not just about safety. It is about dignity and privacy.
Another post I can skip over
But not without feeling the urge to respond and mansplain that you are skipping over it eh?
It is just horrible and frankly disrespects the parents wishes
And hopefully entirely untrue. Better still if the author is locked up for a while. About a thousand years should do. Capital letter offence after all.
I go off gardening and miss an interesting discussion.
On the Equality Act Act the position is really very simple.
Its aim is to prevent discrimination on various grounds. One of them is sex. But there are a number of exemptions. To fall within them you have to comply with the requirements of the particular exemption.
The Equlity Act does not mandate single sex loos or changing rooms for service providers such as shops. But if they want to provide them then these must be divided by sex, as has always been clear - at least to those who bothered to read and understand the law and cases, rather than to activists, and this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
But as per @Phil - "Yes - I should have added that any split M+S makes has to be justifiable under the Equality Act. Which is of course why so many of these places are implementing gender neutral changing - they hope it will enable them to avoid the entire controversy." service providers doing this will not avoid controversy because a failure to provide sex specific spaces can amount to direct or indirect sex discrimination. There have already been legal cases saying this - the Earl Shilton case, for instance. So service providers would be wise to provide male only and female only facilities as well as a unisex one if they wish.
@Phil's rather contemptuous reference to GenCrit crowd is pathetic.
First, he seems to think that women should put up with indirect discrimination. No. Why should they?
Second there are good reasons why gender neutral or mixed sex facilities are disliked by women. They increase the risk of sexual assaults from voyeurism upwards as the police have warned and as has been shown every time mixed sex facilities replace single sex ones. See recent reports re unisex facilities at sports and swimming centres. They don't want to take the risk of a hidden camera having been placed there and their intimate activities being viewed nd shred.
Third, women don't want to use seats men have pissed or wanked on. Or walk on floors which are pissy. They don't want to be a cubicle next to a man having a wank - and yes this has happened. They don't want men around when they are cleaning up after heavy bleeding and / or diarrhoea during menstruation or if they have fibroids or as can happen at the menopause or if they have a miscarriage etc. They don't want to see men rooting around sanitary bins taking used pads which they the men will use to pretend they too are having "periods". This is a fetish for some "trans" identified men. They boast about it.
Fourth they don't want to be forced to see men who are strangers naked or in any state of undress in a public place. Why should they?
It is not just about safety. It is about dignity and privacy.
As for girls, ask schoolgirls how they feel about having to share toilets with boys during puberty, when they are having their periods. They hate it. Recent opinion polls show that a majority of all ages and both sexes believe that there should be single sex facilities. This is not a generational divide.
If those very few men who have had surgery don't want to use men's loos (why aren't cubicles in the mens sufficient?) they can use gender neutral ones. There is no reason to use women's spaces. Women's spaces and the women using them are not there to affirm men's feelings or delusions or identity. Those who demand this are showing that they fundamentally think of women as men's support animals. We aren't. If a man needs to force a woman to affirm his "identity" he doesn't have one, he has a neurosis.
Finally employers and schools have to provide single sex facilities. I think service providers should also have to. There is no good reason why women should have to depend on the kindness of strangers, particularly since there has been a movement over the last decade by a subset of men to be very determinedly unkind to women and deny them dignity, privacy and safety.
Oh and remember that guidance is not the law. It is a guide. An organisation should get legal advice from lawyers expert in this area of law. Frankly, they already should have because the Equality Act is a consolidating statute consolidating legislation going back to at least the mid-1960's. The confusion claim is so much disingenuous nonsense deliberately promulgated by activists trying to undermine the law, take away women's rights and introduce self-ID (which has never been lawful in the UK). Organisations which listened to legally illiterate lobbyists have only themselves to blame. Get good legal advice, implement it, have clear signage and stop issuing wordy values statements while treating half the population with disdain.
I go off gardening and miss an interesting discussion.
On the Equality Act Act the position is really very simple.
Its aim is to prevent discrimination on various grounds. One of them is sex. But there are a number of exemptions. To fall within them you have to comply with the requirements of the particular exemption.
The Equlity Act does not mandate single sex loos or changing rooms for service providers such as shops. But if they want to provide them then these must be divided by sex, as has always been clear - at least to those who bothered to read and understand the law and cases, rather than to activists, and this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
But as per @Phil - "Yes - I should have added that any split M+S makes has to be justifiable under the Equality Act. Which is of course why so many of these places are implementing gender neutral changing - they hope it will enable them to avoid the entire controversy." service providers doing this will not avoid controversy because a failure to provide sex specific spaces can amount to direct or indirect sex discrimination. There have already been legal cases saying this - the Earl Shilton case, for instance. So service providers would be wise to provide male only and female only facilities as well as a unisex one if they wish.
@Phil's rather contemptuous reference to GenCrit crowd is pathetic.
First, he seems to think that women should put up with indirect discrimination. No. Why should they?
Second there are good reasons why gender neutral or mixed sex facilities are disliked by women. They increase the risk of sexual assaults from voyeurism upwards as the police have warned and as has been shown every time mixed sex facilities replace single sex ones. See recent reports re unisex facilities at sports and swimming centres. They don't want to take the risk of a hidden camera having been placed there and their intimate activities being viewed and shared.
Third, women don't want to use seats men have pissed or wanked on. Or walk on floors which are pissy. They don't want to be a cubicle next to a man having a wank - and yes this has happened. They don't want men around when they are cleaning up after heavy bleeding and / or diarrhoea during menstruation or if they have fibroids or as can happen at the menopause or if they have a miscarriage etc. They don't want to see men rooting around sanitary bins taking used pads which they the men will use to pretend they too are having "periods". This is a fetish for some "trans" identified men. They boast about it.
Fourth they don't want to be forced to see men who are strangers naked or in any state of undress in a public place. Why should they?
It is not just about safety. It is about dignity and privacy.
Another post I can skip over
Or you could just be polite and not comment. I do find it strange how happy you are to show others that you are rude, inconsiderate and arrogant...
The Greens under Zack attack ate their lunch. They’re dead.
And when Burnham wins Labour pivots left and kills the greens surge. Just look at the Compass twitter feed for what to expect
How long before the Greens split?
Not long IMHO
When Burnham wins the leadership and pivots left the Corbynite hard left will go back to Labour and that will leave the environment loving NIMBY brigade
Quite where it leaves Zack remains to be seen
Are parties doing well less likely to split? Why split when you’re winning?
That said, Reform did see splits while they were doing well, but those were driven by interpersonal tensions between Farage and others.
Your Party aren’t winning and, aside from a few inner city areas, neither are the Greens.
I suspect when Burnham pivots left Greens on the left will go back.
Your Party aren't winning, but the Greens are doing better than they have ever done before. Most MPs ever. Most local councillors ever. Most directly-elected mayors ever. Most councils led ever. Most Senedd members ever. Equal most London Assembly members ever. Most MSPs ever (although they're a separate party). Highest polling ever.
Their polling numbers have fallen back.
As for the rest. It could be peak green. We will see.
Their polling numbers have fallen back a bit. They are still above any polling they received before this year, aren't they? Maybe it's peak Green, and I wouldn't mind if it was, but I think they're generally pretty happy within the party at the moment.
Just watched the Reform candidate for Makerfield. They've got to be joking haven't they? He was interviewed by Chris Mason and though only two or three minutes he was a car crash. Farage must have been squirming.
Farage's despicable racially charged commentary on the murder of Henry Novak despite Mark Novak, Henry's father pleading with politicians not to turn this tragedy into a racial witch hunt against non whites. Of course Farage went in with his boots on to stir a hornets nest of outrage. One expects such a disgusting manipulation from Farage, but Philp charged in despite Badenoch earlier, and quite impressively I thought cautioning of Farage's racist opportunism.
So why was George Floyd politicised?
It was a murder by an officer of the state, not simply a criminal.
That is political.
The equivalent in the UK is not Digwa, but Sarah Everard.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
I go off gardening and miss an interesting discussion.
On the Equality Act Act the position is really very simple.
Its aim is to prevent discrimination on various grounds. One of them is sex. But there are a number of exemptions. To fall within them you have to comply with the requirements of the particular exemption.
The Equlity Act does not mandate single sex loos or changing rooms for service providers such as shops. But if they want to provide them then these must be divided by sex, as has always been clear - at least to those who bothered to read and understand the law and cases, rather than to activists, and this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
But as per @Phil - "Yes - I should have added that any split M+S makes has to be justifiable under the Equality Act. Which is of course why so many of these places are implementing gender neutral changing - they hope it will enable them to avoid the entire controversy." service providers doing this will not avoid controversy because a failure to provide sex specific spaces can amount to direct or indirect sex discrimination. There have already been legal cases saying this - the Earl Shilton case, for instance. So service providers would be wise to provide male only and female only facilities as well as a unisex one if they wish.
@Phil's rather contemptuous reference to GenCrit crowd is pathetic.
First, he seems to think that women should put up with indirect discrimination. No. Why should they?
Second there are good reasons why gender neutral or mixed sex facilities are disliked by women. They increase the risk of sexual assaults from voyeurism upwards as the police have warned and as has been shown every time mixed sex facilities replace single sex ones. See recent reports re unisex facilities at sports and swimming centres. They don't want to take the risk of a hidden camera having been placed there and their intimate activities being viewed and shared.
Third, women don't want to use seats men have pissed or wanked on. Or walk on floors which are pissy. They don't want to be a cubicle next to a man having a wank - and yes this has happened. They don't want men around when they are cleaning up after heavy bleeding and / or diarrhoea during menstruation or if they have fibroids or as can happen at the menopause or if they have a miscarriage etc. They don't want to see men rooting around sanitary bins taking used pads which they the men will use to pretend they too are having "periods". This is a fetish for some "trans" identified men. They boast about it.
Fourth they don't want to be forced to see men who are strangers naked or in any state of undress in a public place. Why should they?
It is not just about safety. It is about dignity and privacy.
Another post I can skip over
Or you could just be polite and not comment. I do find it strange how happy you are to show others that you are rude, inconsiderate and arrogant...
I go off gardening and miss an interesting discussion.
On the Equality Act Act the position is really very simple.
Its aim is to prevent discrimination on various grounds. One of them is sex. But there are a number of exemptions. To fall within them you have to comply with the requirements of the particular exemption.
The Equlity Act does not mandate single sex loos or changing rooms for service providers such as shops. But if they want to provide them then these must be divided by sex, as has always been clear - at least to those who bothered to read and understand the law and cases, rather than to activists, and this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
But as per @Phil - "Yes - I should have added that any split M+S makes has to be justifiable under the Equality Act. Which is of course why so many of these places are implementing gender neutral changing - they hope it will enable them to avoid the entire controversy." service providers doing this will not avoid controversy because a failure to provide sex specific spaces can amount to direct or indirect sex discrimination. There have already been legal cases saying this - the Earl Shilton case, for instance. So service providers would be wise to provide male only and female only facilities as well as a unisex one if they wish.
@Phil's rather contemptuous reference to GenCrit crowd is pathetic.
First, he seems to think that women should put up with indirect discrimination. No. Why should they?
Second there are good reasons why gender neutral or mixed sex facilities are disliked by women. They increase the risk of sexual assaults from voyeurism upwards as the police have warned and as has been shown every time mixed sex facilities replace single sex ones. See recent reports re unisex facilities at sports and swimming centres. They don't want to take the risk of a hidden camera having been placed there and their intimate activities being viewed and shared.
Third, women don't want to use seats men have pissed or wanked on. Or walk on floors which are pissy. They don't want to be a cubicle next to a man having a wank - and yes this has happened. They don't want men around when they are cleaning up after heavy bleeding and / or diarrhoea during menstruation or if they have fibroids or as can happen at the menopause or if they have a miscarriage etc. They don't want to see men rooting around sanitary bins taking used pads which they the men will use to pretend they too are having "periods". This is a fetish for some "trans" identified men. They boast about it.
Fourth they don't want to be forced to see men who are strangers naked or in any state of undress in a public place. Why should they?
It is not just about safety. It is about dignity and privacy.
Another post I can skip over
But not without feeling the urge to respond and mansplain that you are skipping over it eh?
The Greens under Zack attack ate their lunch. They’re dead.
And when Burnham wins Labour pivots left and kills the greens surge. Just look at the Compass twitter feed for what to expect
How long before the Greens split?
Not long IMHO
When Burnham wins the leadership and pivots left the Corbynite hard left will go back to Labour and that will leave the environment loving NIMBY brigade
Quite where it leaves Zack remains to be seen
Are parties doing well less likely to split? Why split when you’re winning?
That said, Reform did see splits while they were doing well, but those were driven by interpersonal tensions between Farage and others.
Your Party aren’t winning and, aside from a few inner city areas, neither are the Greens.
I suspect when Burnham pivots left Greens on the left will go back.
Your Party aren't winning, but the Greens are doing better than they have ever done before. Most MPs ever. Most local councillors ever. Most directly-elected mayors ever. Most councils led ever. Most Senedd members ever. Equal most London Assembly members ever. Most MSPs ever (although they're a separate party). Highest polling ever.
Their polling numbers have fallen back.
As for the rest. It could be peak green. We will see.
Their polling numbers have fallen back a bit. They are still above any polling they received before this year, aren't they? Maybe it's peak Green, and I wouldn't mind if it was, but I think they're generally pretty happy within the party at the moment.
Just watched the Reform candidate for Makerfield. They've got to be joking haven't they? He was interviewed by Chris Mason and though only two or three minutes he was a car crash. Farage must have been squirming.
Farage's despicable racially charged commentary on the murder of Henry Novak despite Mark Novak, Henry's father pleading with politicians not to turn this tragedy into a racial witch hunt against non whites. Of course Farage went in with his boots on to stir a hornets nest of outrage. One expects such a disgusting manipulation from Farage, but Philp charged in despite Badenoch earlier, and quite impressively I thought cautioning of Farage's racist opportunism.
So why was George Floyd politicised?
It was a murder by an officer of the state, not simply a criminal.
That is political.
The equivalent in the UK is not Digwa, but Sarah Everard.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
Blimey.
You think my analysis is wrong? Let's reconvene for the next bake off series and count them up.
The Greens under Zack attack ate their lunch. They’re dead.
And when Burnham wins Labour pivots left and kills the greens surge. Just look at the Compass twitter feed for what to expect
How long before the Greens split?
I think a significant proportion of those who left Labour under SKS could be persuaded to vote for Burnham
I heard him talk about 47 years of Neo Liberalism failing the working classes and not addressing inequality
On the other hand I have heard him cave to the Red Tory agenda on issue after issue in the last few weeks
So it very much depends which route Labour goes down for me to consider leaving the Greens
I'd almost decided to switch to the Greens but I'm giving Burnham a chance (and going up next weekend to help canvass). I'm not optimistic about him being consistently left-wing, but he has some interesting ideas and doesn't seem sectarian. Let's see.
You should give the Tories a spin. Far better.
Still shrilling for that lost cause, I see?
Why should anyone support the Conservatives currently? For what do they actually stand?
On a more serious note, how do Conservatives view Restore - potential ally, existential threat, fringe movement?
Fair enough. Yes, guilty.
Indeed, why should anyone bother with today's Tories? It's mostly just a hanging on to history thing I guess. Kemi is better as a leader, but her bench is woeful.
(I was once a Tory, and hope to become one again, but unconnected otherwise)
My personal view of Lowe is that he's awful. Really bad.
I'll offer you an honest assessment from the LD trenches (I'm not a member though am considering rejoining).
Badenoch is doing well - the local election results outside London were bruising and accentuated by the fact councils which had postponed in 2025 were legally forced to hold contests this year so in places like Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex, the pain of 2025 was essentially dished out a year later.
In London, there were good results for the Conservatives against Labour and with very little improvement they might have added Barnet, Enfield and Wandsworth to the boroughs in majority control. They also held off Reform in Bromley and Bexley but were obliterated in south west London,as well as Havering and rendered an irrelevance in most of Inner and East London. I think it's 12 Boroughs where there are now no Conservative councillors.
Badenoch has also worked out there's no point being Reform-lite just as it won't help Farage being Restore-lite. I think she and her advisers see the outline of a distinctive approach but there are several hard sells to be made, first, why, after 2010-24 (and especially 2019-24) should anyone trust or believe the Conservatives to act in a conservative way (whatever that is)?
Second, if you want the public finances to improve and you see the route to that by cutting spending and taxes to encourage growth, whose benefits will you be cutting, whose Services will you end and how much will you charge people for that which they currently get for nothing? Whose taxes will you cut and by how much and how will you square the circle of commitments to spending more on defence and the Police among other things with the ending of stamp duty and presumably measures to helpthe car driver?
I agree on Lowe and as for immigration, it's one thing to argue for the deportation of illegal immigrants and non British-born criminals but I fear Restore have that streak of ethno-nationalism and unfortunately there are too many who would tacitly support their notion of a "white Christian" Britain.
I think pretty much everyone on PB agrees that we need to address spending, and that Starmer is somehow creating a no-vote zone in precisely the political region that we all vote, or vote adjacent to.
It's not a good time.
Immigration has to be addressed. We are just creating a nation of welfare much populated by people of no history here, and largely made up of those with paper-thin claims to charity. I've no strong view as to what the solution is, and I wouldn't vote based on policy in the area, but I'll equally not cry a tear for the immigrants.
Most immigration is on work visas or study. They're not dependent on charity. The proportion who are significant claimants -- asylum seekers, those given asylum and Ukrainian refugees -- are only a small proportion of the total immigrants. Your average immigrant is claiming less and paying more in tax than your average native born British person.
And immigration is being addressed. It has shrunk hugely compared to what it was under Johnson.
The problems with spending v tax revenue are more to do with poor productivity gains and an ageing population.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
Blimey.
You think my analysis is wrong? Let's reconvene for the next bake off series and count them up.
And it's not a problem. It's an observation.
Your second paragraph is fine. Personally I wouldn't waste time worrying over it.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
On one hand- fair enough.
On the other, weightier hand- what are adverts for? Not to reflect Britain as it is, but to encourage increased sales of the advertisers' products. That mostly means skewing younger, if only because their buying habits aren't fixed. And that means happy multi-ethnic families, because that's what the young see as aspirational. See also, non-traditional ideas of identity and gender. They look odd or worse to those of use who are older, but the advertisers aren't trying to sell to us.
And oldsplaining goes down as well as mansplaining. And, frankly, that's how it should be.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
I'm not sure I buy that. I don't think people work on the basis that unless there's someone who's exactly like them they won't engage or buy.
It's more a philosophy, particularly because the ratios are so out of kilter to how it actually is.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
You could have stopped at someone like Roger.
It's not about if it works or not; they believe it for its own merits.
The Greens under Zack attack ate their lunch. They’re dead.
And when Burnham wins Labour pivots left and kills the greens surge. Just look at the Compass twitter feed for what to expect
How long before the Greens split?
Not long IMHO
When Burnham wins the leadership and pivots left the Corbynite hard left will go back to Labour and that will leave the environment loving NIMBY brigade
Quite where it leaves Zack remains to be seen
Are parties doing well less likely to split? Why split when you’re winning?
That said, Reform did see splits while they were doing well, but those were driven by interpersonal tensions between Farage and others.
Your Party aren’t winning and, aside from a few inner city areas, neither are the Greens.
I suspect when Burnham pivots left Greens on the left will go back.
Your Party aren't winning, but the Greens are doing better than they have ever done before. Most MPs ever. Most local councillors ever. Most directly-elected mayors ever. Most councils led ever. Most Senedd members ever. Equal most London Assembly members ever. Most MSPs ever (although they're a separate party). Highest polling ever.
Their polling numbers have fallen back.
As for the rest. It could be peak green. We will see.
Their polling numbers have fallen back a bit. They are still above any polling they received before this year, aren't they? Maybe it's peak Green, and I wouldn't mind if it was, but I think they're generally pretty happy within the party at the moment.
Just watched the Reform candidate for Makerfield. They've got to be joking haven't they? He was interviewed by Chris Mason and though only two or three minutes he was a car crash. Farage must have been squirming.
Farage's despicable racially charged commentary on the murder of Henry Novak despite Mark Novak, Henry's father pleading with politicians not to turn this tragedy into a racial witch hunt against non whites. Of course Farage went in with his boots on to stir a hornets nest of outrage. One expects such a disgusting manipulation from Farage, but Philp charged in despite Badenoch earlier, and quite impressively I thought cautioning of Farage's racist opportunism.
So why was George Floyd politicised?
It was a murder by an officer of the state, not simply a criminal.
That is political.
The equivalent in the UK is not Digwa, but Sarah Everard.
The Greens under Zack attack ate their lunch. They’re dead.
And when Burnham wins Labour pivots left and kills the greens surge. Just look at the Compass twitter feed for what to expect
How long before the Greens split?
Not long IMHO
When Burnham wins the leadership and pivots left the Corbynite hard left will go back to Labour and that will leave the environment loving NIMBY brigade
Quite where it leaves Zack remains to be seen
Are parties doing well less likely to split? Why split when you’re winning?
That said, Reform did see splits while they were doing well, but those were driven by interpersonal tensions between Farage and others.
Your Party aren’t winning and, aside from a few inner city areas, neither are the Greens.
I suspect when Burnham pivots left Greens on the left will go back.
Your Party aren't winning, but the Greens are doing better than they have ever done before. Most MPs ever. Most local councillors ever. Most directly-elected mayors ever. Most councils led ever. Most Senedd members ever. Equal most London Assembly members ever. Most MSPs ever (although they're a separate party). Highest polling ever.
Their polling numbers have fallen back.
As for the rest. It could be peak green. We will see.
Their polling numbers have fallen back a bit. They are still above any polling they received before this year, aren't they? Maybe it's peak Green, and I wouldn't mind if it was, but I think they're generally pretty happy within the party at the moment.
Just watched the Reform candidate for Makerfield. They've got to be joking haven't they? He was interviewed by Chris Mason and though only two or three minutes he was a car crash. Farage must have been squirming.
Farage's despicable racially charged commentary on the murder of Henry Novak despite Mark Novak, Henry's father pleading with politicians not to turn this tragedy into a racial witch hunt against non whites. Of course Farage went in with his boots on to stir a hornets nest of outrage. One expects such a disgusting manipulation from Farage, but Philp charged in despite Badenoch earlier, and quite impressively I thought cautioning of Farage's racist opportunism.
You seem to be more outraged by Farage than by Digwa?
I would be interested to learn who agrees with you that I am an apologist for Digwa. I believe you were being unnecessarily impish with this post.
A racist like you talking down to an Asian bloke like me.
Please explain my racism. I do agree that this place smells very racist this evening.
I am not sure whether the accusation, for which you got a like, is a reality of which I should be aware or an attempt at inappropriate comedy.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
Older people see far more TV adverts, I watch so little TV I barely notice, and it's one thing my retired mother has cited more than once.
She has moved vociferously to Reform.
So we can't rule out it's having political effects.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
Older people see far more TV adverts, I watch so little TV I barely notice, and it's one thing my retired mother has cited more than once.
She has moved vociferously to Reform.
So we can't rule out it's having political effects.
The Greens under Zack attack ate their lunch. They’re dead.
And when Burnham wins Labour pivots left and kills the greens surge. Just look at the Compass twitter feed for what to expect
How long before the Greens split?
Not long IMHO
When Burnham wins the leadership and pivots left the Corbynite hard left will go back to Labour and that will leave the environment loving NIMBY brigade
Quite where it leaves Zack remains to be seen
Are parties doing well less likely to split? Why split when you’re winning?
That said, Reform did see splits while they were doing well, but those were driven by interpersonal tensions between Farage and others.
Your Party aren’t winning and, aside from a few inner city areas, neither are the Greens.
I suspect when Burnham pivots left Greens on the left will go back.
Your Party aren't winning, but the Greens are doing better than they have ever done before. Most MPs ever. Most local councillors ever. Most directly-elected mayors ever. Most councils led ever. Most Senedd members ever. Equal most London Assembly members ever. Most MSPs ever (although they're a separate party). Highest polling ever.
Their polling numbers have fallen back.
As for the rest. It could be peak green. We will see.
Their polling numbers have fallen back a bit. They are still above any polling they received before this year, aren't they? Maybe it's peak Green, and I wouldn't mind if it was, but I think they're generally pretty happy within the party at the moment.
Just watched the Reform candidate for Makerfield. They've got to be joking haven't they? He was interviewed by Chris Mason and though only two or three minutes he was a car crash. Farage must have been squirming.
Farage's despicable racially charged commentary on the murder of Henry Novak despite Mark Novak, Henry's father pleading with politicians not to turn this tragedy into a racial witch hunt against non whites. Of course Farage went in with his boots on to stir a hornets nest of outrage. One expects such a disgusting manipulation from Farage, but Philp charged in despite Badenoch earlier, and quite impressively I thought cautioning of Farage's racist opportunism.
So why was George Floyd politicised?
It was a murder by an officer of the state, not simply a criminal.
That is political.
The equivalent in the UK is not Digwa, but Sarah Everard.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
It may well reflect the population where advertising and marketing people tend to live, which is disproportionately urban, and above all in London, where indigenous English people are in the minority. And, since they tend never to leave the M25, or even go past the North Circular Road, they think that the UK is 50% or less white, rather than around 88%.
This kind of ignorance and insularity amongst the metropolitan elite has been responsible for many of the big developments in this country (and analogous developments in many other countries) such as the Leave vote or the Deplorables voting for Trump. And if anything the ignorant contempt in which they hold 90% of their fellow countrymen is increasing.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
There was a time when there were no non whites at all. It's not about whether there is a right or wrong number but it is a thing that mixed race depiction in adverts is far more common than in the British population. No one is demanding a return to a 'better' time where no such mixed race couples ere shown. But it is a feature that is commented on.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
There was a time when there were no non whites at all. It's not about whether there is a right or wrong number but it is a thing that mixed race depiction in adverts is far more common than in the British population. No one is demanding a return to a 'better' time where no such mixed race couples ere shown. But it is a feature that is commented on.
How long ago was that do you think?
Why shouldn’t you demand a return to no non whites in at least some adverts?
We live in odd times. We have colour blind casting so that Anne Boleyn can be played by someone of colour. Cool, it's acting right? But I bet you won't get Nelson Mandela played by a white dude, or Othello.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
There was a time when there were no non whites at all. It's not about whether there is a right or wrong number but it is a thing that mixed race depiction in adverts is far more common than in the British population. No one is demanding a return to a 'better' time where no such mixed race couples ere shown. But it is a feature that is commented on.
What a funny thing to be worrying about. It is more constructive to try and avoid having to watch any ads in the first place.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
There was a time when there were no non whites at all. It's not about whether there is a right or wrong number but it is a thing that mixed race depiction in adverts is far more common than in the British population. No one is demanding a return to a 'better' time where no such mixed race couples ere shown. But it is a feature that is commented on.
How long ago was that do you think?
Why shouldn’t you demand a return to no non whites in at least some adverts?
God knows. 1980's maybe. Roger would know.
Only an insane person would make such a demand. The adverts are all independent and it's up to them who they use.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
There was a time when there were no non whites at all. It's not about whether there is a right or wrong number but it is a thing that mixed race depiction in adverts is far more common than in the British population. No one is demanding a return to a 'better' time where no such mixed race couples ere shown. But it is a feature that is commented on.
Bloody hell, you are right. Bakeoff the Professionals. A Frenchman, a Chinese lady, an Afro Caribbean, a South Asian, Eastern Europeans and Ellie Taylor in the World's shortest pink dress. Blimey!
We live in off times. We have colour bling casting so that Anne Boleyn can be played by someone of colour. Cool, it's acting right? But I bet you won't get Nelson Mandela played by a white dude, or Othello.
Well that's wrong. Sir Patrick Stewart played Othello.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
It may well reflect the population where advertising and marketing people tend to live, which is disproportionately urban, and above all in London, where indigenous English people are in the minority. And, since they tend never to leave the M25, or even go past the North Circular Road, they think that the UK is 50% or less white, rather than around 88%.
This kind of ignorance and insularity amongst the metropolitan elite has been responsible for many of the big developments in this country (and analogous developments in many other countries) such as the Leave vote or the Deplorables voting for Trump. And if anything the ignorant contempt in which they hold 90% of their fellow countrymen is increasing.
What do you think the percentage of black to white should be in London in your view?
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
There was a time when there were no non whites at all. It's not about whether there is a right or wrong number but it is a thing that mixed race depiction in adverts is far more common than in the British population. No one is demanding a return to a 'better' time where no such mixed race couples ere shown. But it is a feature that is commented on.
Bloody hell, you are right. Bakeoff the Professionals. A Frenchman, a Chinese lady, an Afro Caribbean, a South Asian, Eastern Europeans and Ellie Taylor in the World's shortest pink dress. Blimey!
Blimey is right for the last one. Phwoor, as you can no longer say in polite company.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
There was a time when there were no non whites at all. It's not about whether there is a right or wrong number but it is a thing that mixed race depiction in adverts is far more common than in the British population. No one is demanding a return to a 'better' time where no such mixed race couples ere shown. But it is a feature that is commented on.
What a funny thing to be worrying about. It is more constructive to try and avoid having to watch any ads in the first place.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
There was a time when there were no non whites at all. It's not about whether there is a right or wrong number but it is a thing that mixed race depiction in adverts is far more common than in the British population. No one is demanding a return to a 'better' time where no such mixed race couples ere shown. But it is a feature that is commented on.
How long ago was that do you think?
Why shouldn’t you demand a return to no non whites in at least some adverts?
You can always watch Antiques Road Show, wearing poppies in August.
But why is he allowed to be jumped on? He presents his views just as others do.
In this context Roger is someone who makes adverts hence someone like him decides on casting. In general anyone can get jumped on, and frequently does.
But why is he allowed to be jumped on? He presents his views just as others do.
In this context Roger is someone who makes adverts hence someone like him decides on casting. In general anyone can get jumped on, and frequently does.
The idea of being indigenous is tricky anywhere. Humanity has seen waves of population migration since they left Africa and very often preexisting inhabitants get moved on or exterminated. Even places like NZ or Australia we cannot really be sure that the people we consider to be indigenous really are, and are not in fact usurpers.
In the UK? God knows. But until WW2 the country was overwhelmingly white.
We live in off times. We have colour bling casting so that Anne Boleyn can be played by someone of colour. Cool, it's acting right? But I bet you won't get Nelson Mandela played by a white dude, or Othello.
Well that's wrong. Sir Patrick Stewart played Othello.
Not as wrong as a bald guy playing a Star Trek captain!
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
There was a time when there were no non whites at all. It's not about whether there is a right or wrong number but it is a thing that mixed race depiction in adverts is far more common than in the British population. No one is demanding a return to a 'better' time where no such mixed race couples ere shown. But it is a feature that is commented on.
Bloody hell, you are right. Bakeoff the Professionals. A Frenchman, a Chinese lady, an Afro Caribbean, a South Asian, Eastern Europeans and Ellie Taylor in the World's shortest pink dress. Blimey!
I'm always vaguely impressed Bake Off: The Professionals is still going, it always seems to me to have none of the charm that made the main show big.
We live in off times. We have colour bling casting so that Anne Boleyn can be played by someone of colour. Cool, it's acting right? But I bet you won't get Nelson Mandela played by a white dude, or Othello.
Well that's wrong. Sir Patrick Stewart played Othello.
Not as wrong as a bald guy playing a Star Trek captain!
Sheldon: You can't be Professor Proton. You're not a scientist. Wil Wheaton: Well, I was never on a starship, but pretending I was bought me this house. And if I'd pretended a little longer, it would have a swimming pool.
The idea of being indigenous is tricky anywhere. Humanity has seen waves of population migration since they left Africa and very often preexisting inhabitants get moved on or exterminated. Even places like NZ or Australia we cannot really be sure that the people we consider to be indigenous really are, and are not in fact usurpers.
In the UK? God knows. But until WW2 the country was overwhelmingly white.
I guess my point is, what does indigenous imply? Is it something we should aspire to? What qualifies does an indigenous person have?
To give a stupid example, I assume KP isn’t indigenous English even though his grandparents were native to these islands? But he seems culturally identical to me.
The Greens under Zack attack ate their lunch. They’re dead.
And when Burnham wins Labour pivots left and kills the greens surge. Just look at the Compass twitter feed for what to expect
How long before the Greens split?
Not long IMHO
When Burnham wins the leadership and pivots left the Corbynite hard left will go back to Labour and that will leave the environment loving NIMBY brigade
Quite where it leaves Zack remains to be seen
Are parties doing well less likely to split? Why split when you’re winning?
That said, Reform did see splits while they were doing well, but those were driven by interpersonal tensions between Farage and others.
Your Party aren’t winning and, aside from a few inner city areas, neither are the Greens.
I suspect when Burnham pivots left Greens on the left will go back.
Your Party aren't winning, but the Greens are doing better than they have ever done before. Most MPs ever. Most local councillors ever. Most directly-elected mayors ever. Most councils led ever. Most Senedd members ever. Equal most London Assembly members ever. Most MSPs ever (although they're a separate party). Highest polling ever.
Their polling numbers have fallen back.
As for the rest. It could be peak green. We will see.
Their polling numbers have fallen back a bit. They are still above any polling they received before this year, aren't they? Maybe it's peak Green, and I wouldn't mind if it was, but I think they're generally pretty happy within the party at the moment.
Just watched the Reform candidate for Makerfield. They've got to be joking haven't they? He was interviewed by Chris Mason and though only two or three minutes he was a car crash. Farage must have been squirming.
Farage's despicable racially charged commentary on the murder of Henry Novak despite Mark Novak, Henry's father pleading with politicians not to turn this tragedy into a racial witch hunt against non whites. Of course Farage went in with his boots on to stir a hornets nest of outrage. One expects such a disgusting manipulation from Farage, but Philp charged in despite Badenoch earlier, and quite impressively I thought cautioning of Farage's racist opportunism.
So why was George Floyd politicised?
It was a murder by an officer of the state, not simply a criminal.
That is political.
The equivalent in the UK is not Digwa, but Sarah Everard.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
There was a time when there were no non whites at all. It's not about whether there is a right or wrong number but it is a thing that mixed race depiction in adverts is far more common than in the British population. No one is demanding a return to a 'better' time where no such mixed race couples ere shown. But it is a feature that is commented on.
Bloody hell, you are right. Bakeoff the Professionals. A Frenchman, a Chinese lady, an Afro Caribbean, a South Asian, Eastern Europeans and Ellie Taylor in the World's shortest pink dress. Blimey!
I'm always vaguely impressed Bake Off: The Professionals is still going, it always seems to me to have none of the charm that made the main show big.
I am vaguely impressed by your impeccable punctuation.
The Greens under Zack attack ate their lunch. They’re dead.
And when Burnham wins Labour pivots left and kills the greens surge. Just look at the Compass twitter feed for what to expect
How long before the Greens split?
Not long IMHO
When Burnham wins the leadership and pivots left the Corbynite hard left will go back to Labour and that will leave the environment loving NIMBY brigade
Quite where it leaves Zack remains to be seen
Are parties doing well less likely to split? Why split when you’re winning?
That said, Reform did see splits while they were doing well, but those were driven by interpersonal tensions between Farage and others.
Your Party aren’t winning and, aside from a few inner city areas, neither are the Greens.
I suspect when Burnham pivots left Greens on the left will go back.
Your Party aren't winning, but the Greens are doing better than they have ever done before. Most MPs ever. Most local councillors ever. Most directly-elected mayors ever. Most councils led ever. Most Senedd members ever. Equal most London Assembly members ever. Most MSPs ever (although they're a separate party). Highest polling ever.
Their polling numbers have fallen back.
As for the rest. It could be peak green. We will see.
Their polling numbers have fallen back a bit. They are still above any polling they received before this year, aren't they? Maybe it's peak Green, and I wouldn't mind if it was, but I think they're generally pretty happy within the party at the moment.
Just watched the Reform candidate for Makerfield. They've got to be joking haven't they? He was interviewed by Chris Mason and though only two or three minutes he was a car crash. Farage must have been squirming.
Farage's despicable racially charged commentary on the murder of Henry Novak despite Mark Novak, Henry's father pleading with politicians not to turn this tragedy into a racial witch hunt against non whites. Of course Farage went in with his boots on to stir a hornets nest of outrage. One expects such a disgusting manipulation from Farage, but Philp charged in despite Badenoch earlier, and quite impressively I thought cautioning of Farage's racist opportunism.
So why was George Floyd politicised?
It was a murder by an officer of the state, not simply a criminal.
That is political.
The equivalent in the UK is not Digwa, but Sarah Everard.
The idea of being indigenous is tricky anywhere. Humanity has seen waves of population migration since they left Africa and very often preexisting inhabitants get moved on or exterminated. Even places like NZ or Australia we cannot really be sure that the people we consider to be indigenous really are, and are not in fact usurpers.
In the UK? God knows. But until WW2 the country was overwhelmingly white.
I guess my point is, what does indigenous imply? Is it something we should aspire to? What qualifies does an indigenous person have?
To give a stupid example, I assume KP isn’t indigenous English even though his grandparents were native to these islands? But he seems culturally identical to me.
Even us Celts came from Eastern Europe circa 800 AD. At least we predated you Anglo Saxons.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
There was a time when there were no non whites at all. It's not about whether there is a right or wrong number but it is a thing that mixed race depiction in adverts is far more common than in the British population. No one is demanding a return to a 'better' time where no such mixed race couples ere shown. But it is a feature that is commented on.
Bloody hell, you are right. Bakeoff the Professionals. A Frenchman, a Chinese lady, an Afro Caribbean, a South Asian, Eastern Europeans and Ellie Taylor in the World's shortest pink dress. Blimey!
I'm always vaguely impressed Bake Off: The Professionals is still going, it always seems to me to have none of the charm that made the main show big.
I am vaguely impressed by your impeccable punctuation.
We live in odd times. We have colour blind casting so that Anne Boleyn can be played by someone of colour. Cool, it's acting right? But I bet you won't get Nelson Mandela played by a white dude, or Othello.
As much of Mandela's story is about race it would be harder, but potentially interesting, to adapt to a white actor playing him and stay coherent. Race is not relevant in the story of Anne Boleyn, so it would be trivial to have an actress of any race play her.
Personally I don't see a problem with any actor playing anyone else, but some will be better suited to particular roles than others, and that may be down to race, height, gender, looks, speech or whatever. It is up to whoever is managing a production to decide.
The idea of being indigenous is tricky anywhere. Humanity has seen waves of population migration since they left Africa and very often preexisting inhabitants get moved on or exterminated. Even places like NZ or Australia we cannot really be sure that the people we consider to be indigenous really are, and are not in fact usurpers.
In the UK? God knows. But until WW2 the country was overwhelmingly white.
I guess my point is, what does indigenous imply? Is it something we should aspire to? What qualifies does an indigenous person have?
To give a stupid example, I assume KP isn’t indigenous English even though his grandparents were native to these islands? But he seems culturally identical to me.
Even us Celts came from Eastern Europe circa 800 AD. At least we predated you Anglo Saxons.
Given the Celts had first mover advantage, it's rather surprising they settled for the shite bits...
The idea of being indigenous is tricky anywhere. Humanity has seen waves of population migration since they left Africa and very often preexisting inhabitants get moved on or exterminated. Even places like NZ or Australia we cannot really be sure that the people we consider to be indigenous really are, and are not in fact usurpers.
In the UK? God knows. But until WW2 the country was overwhelmingly white.
I guess my point is, what does indigenous imply? Is it something we should aspire to? What qualifies does an indigenous person have?
To give a stupid example, I assume KP isn’t indigenous English even though his grandparents were native to these islands? But he seems culturally identical to me.
Even us Celts came from Eastern Europe circa 800 AD. At least we predated you Anglo Saxons.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
There was a time when there were no non whites at all. It's not about whether there is a right or wrong number but it is a thing that mixed race depiction in adverts is far more common than in the British population. No one is demanding a return to a 'better' time where no such mixed race couples ere shown. But it is a feature that is commented on.
Bloody hell, you are right. Bakeoff the Professionals. A Frenchman, a Chinese lady, an Afro Caribbean, a South Asian, Eastern Europeans and Ellie Taylor in the World's shortest pink dress. Blimey!
I'm always vaguely impressed Bake Off: The Professionals is still going, it always seems to me to have none of the charm that made the main show big.
I am vaguely impressed by your impeccable punctuation.
But why is he allowed to be jumped on? He presents his views just as others do.
In this context Roger is someone who makes adverts hence someone like him decides on casting. In general anyone can get jumped on, and frequently does.
We live in odd times. We have colour blind casting so that Anne Boleyn can be played by someone of colour. Cool, it's acting right? But I bet you won't get Nelson Mandela played by a white dude, or Othello.
As much of Mandela's story is about race it would be harder, but potentially interesting, to adapt to a white actor playing him and stay coherent. Race is not relevant in the story of Anne Boleyn, so it would be trivial to have an actress of any race play her.
Personally I don't see a problem with any actor playing anyone else, but some will be better suited to particular roles than others, and that may be down to race, height, gender, looks, speech or whatever. It is up to whoever is managing a production to decide.
Did Jesus really look like Jim Caviezel or Robert Powell?
The idea of being indigenous is tricky anywhere. Humanity has seen waves of population migration since they left Africa and very often preexisting inhabitants get moved on or exterminated. Even places like NZ or Australia we cannot really be sure that the people we consider to be indigenous really are, and are not in fact usurpers.
In the UK? God knows. But until WW2 the country was overwhelmingly white.
I guess my point is, what does indigenous imply? Is it something we should aspire to? What qualifies does an indigenous person have?
To give a stupid example, I assume KP isn’t indigenous English even though his grandparents were native to these islands? But he seems culturally identical to me.
Even us Celts came from Eastern Europe circa 800 AD. At least we predated you Anglo Saxons.
The Greens under Zack attack ate their lunch. They’re dead.
And when Burnham wins Labour pivots left and kills the greens surge. Just look at the Compass twitter feed for what to expect
How long before the Greens split?
Not long IMHO
When Burnham wins the leadership and pivots left the Corbynite hard left will go back to Labour and that will leave the environment loving NIMBY brigade
Quite where it leaves Zack remains to be seen
Are parties doing well less likely to split? Why split when you’re winning?
That said, Reform did see splits while they were doing well, but those were driven by interpersonal tensions between Farage and others.
Your Party aren’t winning and, aside from a few inner city areas, neither are the Greens.
I suspect when Burnham pivots left Greens on the left will go back.
Your Party aren't winning, but the Greens are doing better than they have ever done before. Most MPs ever. Most local councillors ever. Most directly-elected mayors ever. Most councils led ever. Most Senedd members ever. Equal most London Assembly members ever. Most MSPs ever (although they're a separate party). Highest polling ever.
Their polling numbers have fallen back.
As for the rest. It could be peak green. We will see.
Their polling numbers have fallen back a bit. They are still above any polling they received before this year, aren't they? Maybe it's peak Green, and I wouldn't mind if it was, but I think they're generally pretty happy within the party at the moment.
Just watched the Reform candidate for Makerfield. They've got to be joking haven't they? He was interviewed by Chris Mason and though only two or three minutes he was a car crash. Farage must have been squirming.
Farage's despicable racially charged commentary on the murder of Henry Novak despite Mark Novak, Henry's father pleading with politicians not to turn this tragedy into a racial witch hunt against non whites. Of course Farage went in with his boots on to stir a hornets nest of outrage. One expects such a disgusting manipulation from Farage, but Philp charged in despite Badenoch earlier, and quite impressively I thought cautioning of Farage's racist opportunism.
So why was George Floyd politicised?
It was a murder by an officer of the state, not simply a criminal.
That is political.
The equivalent in the UK is not Digwa, but Sarah Everard.
We live in odd times. We have colour blind casting so that Anne Boleyn can be played by someone of colour. Cool, it's acting right? But I bet you won't get Nelson Mandela played by a white dude, or Othello.
As much of Mandela's story is about race it would be harder, but potentially interesting, to adapt to a white actor playing him and stay coherent. Race is not relevant in the story of Anne Boleyn, so it would be trivial to have an actress of any race play her.
Personally I don't see a problem with any actor playing anyone else, but some will be better suited to particular roles than others, and that may be down to race, height, gender, looks, speech or whatever. It is up to whoever is managing a production to decide.
Did Jesus really look like Jim Caviezel or Robert Powell?
Seems unlikely, though we cannot be sure.
I'm confident he didn't resemble Trump, though, as gas recently been suggested.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
There was a time when there were no non whites at all. It's not about whether there is a right or wrong number but it is a thing that mixed race depiction in adverts is far more common than in the British population. No one is demanding a return to a 'better' time where no such mixed race couples ere shown. But it is a feature that is commented on.
Bloody hell, you are right. Bakeoff the Professionals. A Frenchman, a Chinese lady, an Afro Caribbean, a South Asian, Eastern Europeans and Ellie Taylor in the World's shortest pink dress. Blimey!
I'm always vaguely impressed Bake Off: The Professionals is still going, it always seems to me to have none of the charm that made the main show big.
I am vaguely impressed by your impeccable punctuation.
More than happy to talk Bake Off, or punctuation.
Just not toilets
They should make a toilet as their showpiece !
It looks like Ellie Taylor has already taken her trousers off in anticipation.
The idea of being indigenous is tricky anywhere. Humanity has seen waves of population migration since they left Africa and very often preexisting inhabitants get moved on or exterminated. Even places like NZ or Australia we cannot really be sure that the people we consider to be indigenous really are, and are not in fact usurpers.
In the UK? God knows. But until WW2 the country was overwhelmingly white.
I guess my point is, what does indigenous imply? Is it something we should aspire to? What qualifies does an indigenous person have?
To give a stupid example, I assume KP isn’t indigenous English even though his grandparents were native to these islands? But he seems culturally identical to me.
Even us Celts came from Eastern Europe circa 800 AD. At least we predated you Anglo Saxons.
Actually my family is Scottish only two generations ago
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
There was a time when there were no non whites at all. It's not about whether there is a right or wrong number but it is a thing that mixed race depiction in adverts is far more common than in the British population. No one is demanding a return to a 'better' time where no such mixed race couples ere shown. But it is a feature that is commented on.
Bloody hell, you are right. Bakeoff the Professionals. A Frenchman, a Chinese lady, an Afro Caribbean, a South Asian, Eastern Europeans and Ellie Taylor in the World's shortest pink dress. Blimey!
I'm always vaguely impressed Bake Off: The Professionals is still going, it always seems to me to have none of the charm that made the main show big.
I am vaguely impressed by your impeccable punctuation.
But why is he allowed to be jumped on? He presents his views just as others do.
In this context Roger is someone who makes adverts hence someone like him decides on casting. In general anyone can get jumped on, and frequently does.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
There was a time when there were no non whites at all. It's not about whether there is a right or wrong number but it is a thing that mixed race depiction in adverts is far more common than in the British population. No one is demanding a return to a 'better' time where no such mixed race couples ere shown. But it is a feature that is commented on.
Bloody hell, you are right. Bakeoff the Professionals. A Frenchman, a Chinese lady, an Afro Caribbean, a South Asian, Eastern Europeans and Ellie Taylor in the World's shortest pink dress. Blimey!
I'm always vaguely impressed Bake Off: The Professionals is still going, it always seems to me to have none of the charm that made the main show big.
I am vaguely impressed by your impeccable punctuation.
More than happy to talk Bake Off, or punctuation.
Just not toilets
They should make a toilet as their showpiece !
It looks like Ellie Taylor has already taken her trousers off in anticipation.
The Knee seems to have (finally) gone away now, but one lasting effect of the 2020 BLM protests has been that almost all TV adverts now feature mixed-race families.
People will say, "So what?" etc. - and I get that - but it might be playing into perceptions of immigration being much higher that it actually is on the one hand and, if it's too at odds with what people actually see around them and feels contrived, it can play into some people feeling there's another agenda at play.
They should probably vary it a bit more.
Can I ask a question right, how many mixed race families is too many? How many is too few?
It's not a real problem but it is something that has happened. It's not unlike the casting process on sat Great British Bake Off or Sewing Bee. You can guarantee there will be an Asian, a Black, at least two gay, the young one, the old etc. Because they are hitting the target audiences.
It was a genuine question. Are we saying we really want zero?
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
If the aim was to reflect the population then there are far too many mixed race couples depicted. But that's not the aim. Each advert is crafted by someone like Roger to sell stuff and they have come to the conclusion that mixed race works...
Okay so as a serious question, how many did there used to be? Zero?
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
There was a time when there were no non whites at all. It's not about whether there is a right or wrong number but it is a thing that mixed race depiction in adverts is far more common than in the British population. No one is demanding a return to a 'better' time where no such mixed race couples ere shown. But it is a feature that is commented on.
This really is not a thing that government or politicians should opine on. A company in a capitalist market (and that is the essence of advertising) should be free to use whatever actors they want.
The Trump administration is using public money to do in Europe what it condemns Soros for doing.
Though for rather less savoury causes.
https://x.com/eeldenden/status/2061810693830029613 ... It has begun. The US State Department is about to fund Russophile parties across Europe. The implementation of the White House new Security Strategy..
But why is he allowed to be jumped on? He presents his views just as others do.
In this context Roger is someone who makes adverts hence someone like him decides on casting. In general anyone can get jumped on, and frequently does.
Roger works in advertising?
Yes
You’ve met him?
He’s discussed it here.
I remember chatting to him about an LP cover he worked on
Comments
Remember: there was a weird time for a few weeks where they took Fawlty Towers off streaming.
Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧
@TRobinsonNewEra
·
4h
If they won’t do it, we will make the noise on X ourselves to take the knee.
The voices of the people must be heard.
https://x.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/2061813405225193980?s=20
On the Equality Act Act the position is really very simple.
Its aim is to prevent discrimination on various grounds. One of them is sex. But there are a number of exemptions. To fall within them you have to comply with the requirements of the particular exemption.
The Equlity Act does not mandate single sex loos or changing rooms for service providers such as shops. But if they want to provide them then these must be divided by sex, as has always been clear - at least to those who bothered to read and understand the law and cases, rather than to activists, and this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
But as per @Phil - "Yes - I should have added that any split M+S makes has to be justifiable under the Equality Act. Which is of course why so many of these places are implementing gender neutral changing - they hope it will enable them to avoid the entire controversy." service providers doing this will not avoid controversy because a failure to provide sex specific spaces can amount to direct or indirect sex discrimination. There have already been legal cases saying this - the Earl Shilton case, for instance. So service providers would be wise to provide male only and female only facilities as well as a unisex one if they wish.
@Phil's rather contemptuous reference to GenCrit crowd is pathetic.
First, he seems to think that women should put up with indirect discrimination. No. Why should they?
Second there are good reasons why gender neutral or mixed sex facilities are disliked by women. They increase the risk of sexual assaults from voyeurism upwards as the police have warned and as has been shown every time mixed sex facilities replace single sex ones. See recent reports re unisex facilities at sports and swimming centres. They don't want to take the risk of a hidden camera having been placed there and their intimate activities being viewed and shared.
Third, women don't want to use seats men have pissed or wanked on. Or walk on floors which are pissy. They don't want to be a cubicle next to a man having a wank - and yes this has happened. They don't want men around when they are cleaning up after heavy bleeding and / or diarrhoea during menstruation or if they have fibroids or as can happen at the menopause or if they have a miscarriage etc. They don't want to see men rooting around sanitary bins taking used pads which they the men will use to pretend they too are having "periods". This is a fetish for some "trans" identified men. They boast about it.
Fourth they don't want to be forced to see men who are strangers naked or in any state of undress in a public place. Why should they?
It is not just about safety. It is about dignity and privacy.
BRITAIN IS BROKEN 🇬🇧
@BROKENBRITAIN0
🚨BREAKING: IT HAS ALL KICKED OFF IN SOUTHAMPTON 🇬🇧
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ARE CURRENTLY ATTEMPTING TO STORM THE POLICE STATION RIGHT NOW AT THE PROTEST FOR HENRY NOWAK
THIS IS GOING TO BLOW ⚠️
@UKSploosh
https://x.com/BROKENBRITAIN0/status/2061858311704629443?s=20
I wonder if he gets some riots over the weekend. It will help out in the Makerfield by election.
Different method but cold murder by a Police Officer abusing their authority either way.
As for girls, ask schoolgirls how they feel about having to share toilets with boys during puberty, when they are having their periods. They hate it. Recent opinion polls show that a majority of all ages and both sexes believe that there should be single sex facilities. This is not a generational divide.
If those very few men who have had surgery don't want to use men's loos (why aren't cubicles in the mens sufficient?) they can use gender neutral ones. There is no reason to use women's spaces. Women's spaces and the women using them are not there to affirm men's feelings or delusions or identity. Those who demand this are showing that they fundamentally think of women as men's support animals. We aren't. If a man needs to force a woman to affirm his "identity" he doesn't have one, he has a neurosis.
Finally employers and schools have to provide single sex facilities. I think service providers should also have to. There is no good reason why women should have to depend on the kindness of strangers, particularly since there has been a movement over the last decade by a subset of men to be very determinedly unkind to women and deny them dignity, privacy and safety.
Going to plan tonight then.
Many small businesses I've been to or worked at have universal facilities. Sometimes only one to serve everybody who works there, if the business is small enough, which can be universal and lockable.
I do think if there are enough people then it might be reasonable to expect separate sex facilities and schools probably cross that threshold much more than a business which might only have a few employees.
https://x.com/myarrse/status/2061865832276210060?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
What Farage said at the time:
https://x.com/Bushra1Shaikh/status/2061817555224850826
Or one every so often?
It’s a serious point, what is too many or too few? How many did there used to be?
And it's not a problem. It's an observation.
And immigration is being addressed. It has shrunk hugely compared to what it was under Johnson.
The problems with spending v tax revenue are more to do with poor productivity gains and an ageing population.
On the other, weightier hand- what are adverts for? Not to reflect Britain as it is, but to encourage increased sales of the advertisers' products. That mostly means skewing younger, if only because their buying habits aren't fixed. And that means happy multi-ethnic families, because that's what the young see as aspirational. See also, non-traditional ideas of identity and gender. They look odd or worse to those of use who are older, but the advertisers aren't trying to sell to us.
And oldsplaining goes down as well as mansplaining. And, frankly, that's how it should be.
It's more a philosophy, particularly because the ratios are so out of kilter to how it actually is.
So are we saying that was too few? And so we’d rather have say one in every 10 adverts or something?
It's not about if it works or not; they believe it for its own merits.
I am not sure whether the accusation, for which you got a like, is a reality of which I should be aware or an attempt at inappropriate comedy.
She has moved vociferously to Reform.
So we can't rule out it's having political effects.
She has form
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/star-of-channel-4-immigration-show-told-jews-to-go-back-to-fing-europe-qo9576xm
This kind of ignorance and insularity amongst the metropolitan elite has been responsible for many of the big developments in this country (and analogous developments in many other countries) such as the Leave vote or the Deplorables voting for Trump. And if anything the ignorant contempt in which they hold 90% of their fellow countrymen is increasing.
Why shouldn’t you demand a return to no non whites in at least some adverts?
Only an insane person would make such a demand. The adverts are all independent and it's up to them who they use.
Punchline: cos he was born in Scotland!
In the UK? God knows. But until WW2 the country was overwhelmingly white.
Wil Wheaton: Well, I was never on a starship, but pretending I was bought me this house. And if I'd pretended a little longer, it would have a swimming pool.
To give a stupid example, I assume KP isn’t indigenous English even though his grandparents were native to these islands? But he seems culturally identical to me.
But the comparison she pointed out in this case is not wrong, is it ?
I saw her name. I didn’t click on the tweet.
https://x.com/china_tvv/status/2050689798210199776?s=61
Just not toilets
Personally I don't see a problem with any actor playing anyone else, but some will be better suited to particular roles than others, and that may be down to race, height, gender, looks, speech or whatever. It is up to whoever is managing a production to decide.
I'm confident he didn't resemble Trump, though, as gas recently been suggested.
Her sense of style is always most welcome.
Though for rather less savoury causes.
https://x.com/eeldenden/status/2061810693830029613
... It has begun. The US State Department is about to fund Russophile parties across Europe. The implementation of the White House new Security Strategy..
I guess we can be confident Reform’s plan to win over the centre has been abandoned?
I remember chatting to him about an LP cover he worked on