In message <tokgvk$c0u8$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
Always intrigued about programmes are pulled at short notice. I noticed >>yesterday that Clarkson's programme about PQ17 was supposed to be on
again. I thought I might take a look as it was better than the
alternatives but found a programme on the Bayeux Tapestry. I was
wondering why and only just occurred to me that it must be because he has >>upset the Markle Fan Club by speaking the truth about her.
Ah, yes that's probably the reason - though some of the things he said
about her I thought were pretty vile, even though I don't have any time
for her. I'd been hoping to see the PQ17 programme, as I'd missed it when
it was on before. I'd already seem the Bayeux Tapestry one, I think, so didn't watch it.
Always intrigued about programmes are pulled at short notice. I
noticed yesterday that Clarkson's programme about PQ17 was supposed to
be on again. I thought I might take a look as it was better than the >alternatives but found a programme on the Bayeux Tapestry. I was
wondering why and only just occurred to me that it must be because he
has upset the Markle Fan Club by speaking the truth about her.
NY wrote:
Victor Lewis Smith, who was
was? oh, that had passed me by ...
Victor Lewis Smith, who was
On 29/12/2022 18:42, John Hall wrote:
In message <k16412F3qp1U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns >><usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
NY wrote:
Victor Lewis Smith, who was
was? oh, that had passed me by ...
Yes, he died just a few weeks ago.
Yes, although it was all rather a low key announcement, not much coverage. >It's almost as if he's exercised one of his spoofs, and the press
release read like one of his Honest Obituaries ! !
But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort
of sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew shared the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article
where I knew my opinions could cause offence to people that thought differently to me. What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper
thinking for publishing the article?
In message <k16412F3qp1U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
NY wrote:
Victor Lewis Smith, who was
was? oh, that had passed me by ...
Yes, he died just a few weeks ago.
On 29/12/2022 18:14, NY wrote:
But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort of
sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew
shared the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article
where I knew my opinions could cause offence to people that thought
differently to me. What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper
thinking for publishing the article?
+1 The man's a deeply unpleasant shit, that's all there is to it.
"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message news:toks65$dbjr$1@dont-email.me...
On 29/12/2022 18:14, NY wrote:
But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort of
sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew
shared the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article
where I knew my opinions could cause offence to people that thought
differently to me. What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper
thinking for publishing the article?
+1 The man's a deeply unpleasant shit, that's all there is to it.
He came across as a bit bombastic and "full of himself" when he was a reporter on the "proper" Top Gear (back in the days when it was about ordinary cars that the public could afford, before it went badly wrong
and turned into three overgrown lads and their loutish behaviour).
He presented an excellent film about Brunel, in the Greatest Britons
series. He came over fairly well in his episode of "Who Do You Think You Are". He was a blunt, honest-speaking Yorkshireman. I actually quite
liked him - in small doses.
Then it all started to go wrong. Top Gear became Three Louts Pratting
Around in Cars. Clarkson was sacked from Top Gear after he punched his producer when he turned up at his hotel after a day's filming and found
that the hotel kitchen had closed and only cold food was available. Why someone didn't suggest a trip to the chippy in Hawes (the nearby town),
I don't know. Maybe they did.
But nothing prepared us for the vitriolic and downright nasty article
about Meghan Markle. That was an order of magnitude worse than his
behaviour on previous occasions. I wonder what will become of him: that article was distinctly career-ending.
On 29/12/2022 18:14, NY wrote:
But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort of
sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew
shared the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article
where I knew my opinions could cause offence to people that thought
differently to me. What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper
thinking for publishing the article?
+1Â The man's a deeply unpleasant shit, that's all there is to it.
when it was on before. I'd already seem the Bayeux Tapestry one, I
think, so didn't watch it.
He came across as a bit bombastic and "full of himself" when he was a reporter on the "proper" Top Gear (back in the days when it was about ordinary cars that the public could afford, before it went badly wrong and turned into three overgrown lads and their loutish behaviour).
He presented an excellent film about Brunel, in the Greatest Britons series. He came over fairly well in his episode of "Who Do You Think You Are". He
was a blunt, honest-speaking Yorkshireman. I actually quite liked him - in small doses.
Then it all started to go wrong. Top Gear became Three Louts Pratting Around in Cars. Clarkson was sacked from Top Gear after he punched his producer
when he turned up at his hotel after a day's filming and found that the
hotel kitchen had closed and only cold food was available. Why someone
didn't suggest a trip to the chippy in Hawes (the nearby town), I don't
know. Maybe they did.
But nothing prepared us for the vitriolic and downright nasty article about Meghan Markle. That was an order of magnitude worse than his behaviour on previous occasions. I wonder what will become of him: that article was distinctly career-ending.
Always intrigued about programmes are pulled at short notice. I noticed yesterday that Clarkson's programme about PQ17 was supposed to be on
again. I thought I might take a look as it was better than the
alternatives but found a programme on the Bayeux Tapestry. I was
wondering why and only just occurred to me that it must be because he has upset the Markle Fan Club by speaking the truth about her.
In message <tokgvk$c0u8$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
Always intrigued about programmes are pulled at short notice. I noticed >>yesterday that Clarkson's programme about PQ17 was supposed to be on
again. I thought I might take a look as it was better than the
alternatives but found a programme on the Bayeux Tapestry. I was
wondering why and only just occurred to me that it must be because he has >>upset the Markle Fan Club by speaking the truth about her.
Ah, yes that's probably the reason - though some of the things he said
about her I thought were pretty vile, even though I don't have any time
for her. I'd been hoping to see the PQ17 programme, as I'd missed it when
it was on before. I'd already seem the Bayeux Tapestry one, I think, so didn't watch it.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"
Always intrigued about programmes are pulled at short notice. I noticed yesterday that Clarkson's programme about PQ17 was supposed to be on
again. I thought I might take a look as it was better than the
alternatives but found a programme on the Bayeux Tapestry. I was
wondering why and only just occurred to me that it must be because he
has upset the Markle Fan Club by speaking the truth about her.
On 29/12/2022 21:01, NY wrote:
He came across as a bit bombastic and "full of himself" when he was a
reporter on the "proper" Top Gear (back in the days when it was about
ordinary cars that the public could afford, before it went badly wrong and >> turned into three overgrown lads and their loutish behaviour).
He presented an excellent film about Brunel, in the Greatest Britons series. >> He came over fairly well in his episode of "Who Do You Think You Are". He
was a blunt, honest-speaking Yorkshireman. I actually quite liked him - in >> small doses.
Then it all started to go wrong. Top Gear became Three Louts Pratting Around >> in Cars. Clarkson was sacked from Top Gear after he punched his producer
when he turned up at his hotel after a day's filming and found that the
hotel kitchen had closed and only cold food was available. Why someone
didn't suggest a trip to the chippy in Hawes (the nearby town), I don't
know. Maybe they did.
But nothing prepared us for the vitriolic and downright nasty article about >> Meghan Markle. That was an order of magnitude worse than his behaviour on
previous occasions. I wonder what will become of him: that article was
distinctly career-ending.
I have not read his article but her fan club will not accept any
criticism of her, after what she and Ginger have been saying and writing >about the Royal Family and in particular the Queen when she was
terminally ill, I have absolutely no sympathy for them.
I have not watched Clarkson & Co for many years (or their replacements).
I just found Top Gear boring. I remember one programme where they
'reviewed' hatchbacks, one made a comparison of boot capacity and
Clarkson(?) just said they were not interested in that.
It us a pity because Clarkson obviously can make intelligent programmes
when he wants to, the other two are no better but they all know what
their target audience wants and pander to them.
I have not read his article but her fan club will not accept any
criticism of her, after what she and Ginger have been saying and
writing about the Royal Family and in particular the Queen when she was >terminally ill, I have absolutely no sympathy for them.
"John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message news:+$7dLuAo0crjFwri@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
In message <tokgvk$c0u8$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
Always intrigued about programmes are pulled at short notice. I
noticed yesterday that Clarkson's programme about PQ17 was supposed
to be on again. I thought I might take a look as it was better than
the alternatives but found a programme on the Bayeux Tapestry. I was
wondering why and only just occurred to me that it must be because he
has upset the Markle Fan Club by speaking the truth about her.
Ah, yes that's probably the reason - though some of the things he said
about her I thought were pretty vile, even though I don't have any
time for her. I'd been hoping to see the PQ17 programme, as I'd missed
it when it was on before. I'd already seem the Bayeux Tapestry one, I
think, so didn't watch it.
I don't particularly like MM - she's too outspoken and too woke for my liking. But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort
of sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew shared the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article
where I knew my opinions could cause offence to people that thought differently to me. What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper
thinking for publishing the article?
A lot of people have said that the article was racist and have wondered
what would have happened if a black writer had written the same things
about a white member of the royal family. I don't see it as racist. It
is would be just as offensive no matter what race or gender was being
written about.
Is it "Carkson's programme" because he did all the research, etc? Or does
he just act as 'presenter' with his own views? I also noticed it was AWOL
but assumed an error in shedule announcements as I've seen a few examples elewhere of what looks like that.
In a discussion about the article in the Radio 4 Today programme, they thought
that two Sun sub editors and the Sun editor had not read the article before publishing it and that their Australian boss was not amused by it. The article
is the vilest thing I have seen in a newspaper ever. Most of what is written about She and Ginger is the creation of the gutter press. Perhaps you should judge the press and not their target?
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend.
Lord Justice Sedley ruled: "Free speech includes not only the
inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend
to provoke violence."
"Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jul/24/johnezard
"John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message news:+$7dLuAo0crjFwri@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
In message <tokgvk$c0u8$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
Always intrigued about programmes are pulled at short notice. I
noticed yesterday that Clarkson's programme about PQ17 was supposed
to be on again. I thought I might take a look as it was better than
the alternatives but found a programme on the Bayeux Tapestry. I was
wondering why and only just occurred to me that it must be because he
has upset the Markle Fan Club by speaking the truth about her.
Ah, yes that's probably the reason - though some of the things he said
about her I thought were pretty vile, even though I don't have any
time for her. I'd been hoping to see the PQ17 programme, as I'd missed
it when it was on before. I'd already seem the Bayeux Tapestry one, I
think, so didn't watch it.
I don't particularly like MM - she's too outspoken and too woke for my liking. But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort
of sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew shared the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article
where I knew my opinions could cause offence to people that thought differently to me. What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper
thinking for publishing the article?
A lot of people have said that the article was racist and have wondered
what would have happened if a black writer had written the same things
about a white member of the royal family. I don't see it as racist. It
is would be just as offensive no matter what race or gender was being
written about.
On 30/12/2022 15:25, Norman Wells wrote:
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend.
Lord Justice Sedley ruled: "Free speech includes not only the
inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the
heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend
to provoke violence."
"Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jul/24/johnezard
Freedom to offend *WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE* is not a freedom worth
having! Whatever happened to the old tradition that in general you
should respect others unless given particular, good, and just reason not
to do so? Effectively all Clarkson was doing was publicising, and
thereby endeavouring to legitimise, his own massive character failing of extreme bigotry. To any rational individual reading it, his irrational tirade explains a great deal more about his own shortcomings of
character than it does about about the people he targetted.
I don't particularly like MM - she's too outspoken and too woke for my
liking. But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort
of sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew
shared the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article
where I knew my opinions could cause offence to people that thought
differently to me. What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper
thinking for publishing the article?
Maybe people missed (or ignored) the Game of Thrones reference (to a
female character who walks naked through the streets and has excrement
thrown over her).
On 30/12/2022 16:00, Java Jive wrote:
On 30/12/2022 15:25, Norman Wells wrote:
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend.
Lord Justice Sedley ruled: "Free speech includes not only the
inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the
heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not
tend to provoke violence."
"Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jul/24/johnezard
Freedom to offend *WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE* is not a freedom worth
having! Whatever happened to the old tradition that in general you
should respect others unless given particular, good, and just reason
not to do so? Effectively all Clarkson was doing was publicising, and
thereby endeavouring to legitimise, his own massive character failing
of extreme bigotry. To any rational individual reading it, his
irrational tirade explains a great deal more about his own
shortcomings of character than it does about about the people he
targetted.
People are actually entitled to be extreme bigots if they want. It's a valued freedom we all have. We can all hold our own views, and are free
to express them.
Long may it continue.
Does David Attenborough do all his own research or is he now just a
'brand'?
On 30/12/2022 16:33, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/12/2022 16:00, Java Jive wrote:
On 30/12/2022 15:25, Norman Wells wrote:
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend.
Lord Justice Sedley ruled: "Free speech includes not only the
inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the
heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not
tend to provoke violence."
"Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jul/24/johnezard
Freedom to offend *WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE* is not a freedom worth
having! Whatever happened to the old tradition that in general you
should respect others unless given particular, good, and just reason
not to do so? Effectively all Clarkson was doing was publicising,
and thereby endeavouring to legitimise, his own massive character
failing of extreme bigotry. To any rational individual reading it,
his irrational tirade explains a great deal more about his own
shortcomings of character than it does about about the people he
targetted.
People are actually entitled to be extreme bigots if they want. It's
a valued freedom we all have. We can all hold our own views, and are
free to express them.
Not so, there are a great many views that you might hold that you cannot express publicly.
Long may it continue.
As it doesn't happen now, it cannot continue.
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 12:33:02 +0000, Max Demian
Maybe people missed (or ignored) the Game of Thrones reference (to a
female character who walks naked through the streets and has excrement
thrown over her).
I don't watch Game of Thrones so didn't recognise the reference at
all. Maybe Clarkson assumed everyone would know it and take it as
something like a "figure of speech" rather than literally, because it
was a quotation, but I suspect many like me didn't know it either and
assumed it was meant to be taken at face value. It's dangerous
assuming everyone will understand the context of what you say if it
depends on a something not everyone will know.
It was still grotesquely insulting though, even as a quotation. It's
possible to disapprove of someone's behaviour and remain reasonably
factual by giving reasons and examples, rather than ad hom insults
however eloquent you may think they are.
In message <tomad8$kdsg$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
I have not read his article but her fan club will not accept any
criticism of her, after what she and Ginger have been saying and
writing about the Royal Family and in particular the Queen when she
was terminally ill, I have absolutely no sympathy for them.
Criticism of her is one thing, and I agree with a lot of it. But vile
abuse of the kind that Clarkson wrote is something else. And then he
didn't even have the courage of his convictions, and afterwards gave
what had to be an insincere apology.
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend.
Lord Justice Sedley ruled: "Free speech includes not only the
inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend
to provoke violence."
"Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jul/24/johnezard
On 30/12/2022 16:58, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 12:33:02 +0000, Max Demian
Maybe people missed (or ignored) the Game of Thrones reference (to a
female character who walks naked through the streets and has excrement
thrown over her).
I don't watch Game of Thrones so didn't recognise the reference at
all. Maybe Clarkson assumed everyone would know it and take it as
something like a "figure of speech" rather than literally, because it
was a quotation, but I suspect many like me didn't know it either and
assumed it was meant to be taken at face value. It's dangerous
assuming everyone will understand the context of what you say if it
depends on a something not everyone will know.
It was still grotesquely insulting though, even as a quotation. It's
possible to disapprove of someone's behaviour and remain reasonably
factual by giving reasons and examples, rather than ad hom insults
however eloquent you may think they are.
I've never watched/read Game of Thrones. I'm not really into that genre.
So if the much quoted comment about a female character who walks naked >through the streets and has excrement thrown over her was an allusion to
GoT, it went way over my head. I took it at face value - and to my shame
I also took the words as they were quoted (possibly out of context) in
the news stories about the reaction to the article, without going back
to the full text that Clarkson wrote.
On 30/12/2022 10:16, Martin wrote:
In a discussion about the article in the Radio 4 Today programme, they thought
that two Sun sub editors and the Sun editor had not read the article before >> publishing it and that their Australian boss was not amused by it. The article
is the vilest thing I have seen in a newspaper ever. Most of what is written
about She and Ginger is the creation of the gutter press. Perhaps you should >> judge the press and not their target?
Perhaps you need to read some of the many analyses of the truth of their >claims and both of their own histories.
On 30/12/2022 16:33, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/12/2022 16:00, Java Jive wrote:
On 30/12/2022 15:25, Norman Wells wrote:
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend.
Lord Justice Sedley ruled: "Free speech includes not only the
inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the
heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not
tend to provoke violence."
"Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jul/24/johnezard
Freedom to offend *WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE* is not a freedom worth
having! Whatever happened to the old tradition that in general you
should respect others unless given particular, good, and just reason
not to do so? Effectively all Clarkson was doing was publicising,
and thereby endeavouring to legitimise, his own massive character
failing of extreme bigotry. To any rational individual reading it,
his irrational tirade explains a great deal more about his own
shortcomings of character than it does about about the people he
targetted.
People are actually entitled to be extreme bigots if they want. It's
a valued freedom we all have. We can all hold our own views, and are
free to express them.
Not so, there are a great many views that you might hold that you
cannot express publicly.
On 31/12/2022 12:02, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 12:35:29 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
Perhaps you need to read some of the many analyses of the truth of their >>> claims and both of their own histories.
Analysis by the Daily Mail and the Sun?
The usual from the Left "if in doubt blame on the Daily Mail or Sun"!
When they will often believe anything in a tabloid like the Guardian or
even worse, the Daily Maxwell.
Analysis by the Daily Mail and the Sun?
There seems to be a group of MM fans who interpret every criticism of
her as being racist or sexist. The reasons I don't particularly like
or respect her (which is a long way from hating her) have nothing to
do with her ethnic background, and I'd dislike certain personality
traits whether she was male or female, and no matter what her skin
colour was.
On 30/12/2022 16:46, Java Jive wrote:
On 30/12/2022 16:33, Norman Wells wrote:
People are actually entitled to be extreme bigots if they want. It's
a valued freedom we all have. We can all hold our own views, and are
free to express them.
Not so, there are a great many views that you might hold that you
cannot express publicly.
You may be able suppress what people may say, but you can never suppress
what they think.
We are all better off knowing what others think, even if it's nasty and unsavoury.
On 31/12/2022 13:59, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 13:26, MB wrote:
On 31/12/2022 12:02, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 12:35:29 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
Perhaps you need to read some of the many analyses of the truth of
their
claims and both of their own histories.
Analysis by the Daily Mail and the Sun?
The usual from the Left "if in doubt blame on the Daily Mail or Sun"!
The usual from the right failing to give a link in support of their
claims! What so-called 'analyses'? Where?
When they will often believe anything in a tabloid like the Guardian
or even worse, the Daily Maxwell.
The Guardian and The Independent are two of the UK's best newspapers.
If you read more of either you wouldn't post as much bollocks here as
you do.
Did they explain why she claimed they wed three days before their
televised do with "just the two of us" and the Archbishop?
On 31/12/2022 12:41, Mark Carver wrote:
On 30/12/2022 16:46, Java Jive wrote:
On 30/12/2022 16:33, Norman Wells wrote:
People are actually entitled to be extreme bigots if they want.
It's a valued freedom we all have. We can all hold our own views,
and are free to express them.
Not so, there are a great many views that you might hold that you
cannot express publicly.
You may be able suppress what people may say, but you can never
suppress what they think.
I wouldn't wish to do so.
We are all better off knowing what others think, even if it's nasty
and unsavoury.
Not so, that's why there are laws governing what you can say publicly.
On 31/12/2022 13:26, MB wrote:
On 31/12/2022 12:02, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 12:35:29 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
Perhaps you need to read some of the many analyses of the truth of
their
claims and both of their own histories.
Analysis by the Daily Mail and the Sun?
The usual from the Left "if in doubt blame on the Daily Mail or Sun"!
The usual from the right failing to give a link in support of their
claims! What so-called 'analyses'? Where?
When they will often believe anything in a tabloid like the Guardian
or even worse, the Daily Maxwell.
The Guardian and The Independent are two of the UK's best newspapers. If
you read more of either you wouldn't post as much bollocks here as you do.
On 31/12/2022 13:59, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 13:26, MB wrote:
On 31/12/2022 12:02, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 12:35:29 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
Perhaps you need to read some of the many analyses of the truth of
their claims and both of their own histories.
Analysis by the Daily Mail and the Sun?
The usual from the Left "if in doubt blame on the Daily Mail or Sun"!
The usual from the right failing to give a link in support of their
claims! What so-called 'analyses'? Where?
When they will often believe anything in a tabloid like the Guardian
or even worse, the Daily Maxwell.
The Guardian and The Independent are two of the UK's best newspapers.
If you read more of either you wouldn't post as much bollocks here as
you do.
Did they explain why she claimed they wed three days before their
televised do with "just the two of us" and the Archbishop?
Your opinion of MM exactly mirrors mine
Why is full transparency of someone's opinion A Bad Thing ?Why would full transparency of, say, racist, misogynist, ageist or any
On 31/12/2022 15:05, Mark Carver wrote:
Why would full transparency of, say, racist, misogynist, ageist or any
Why is full transparency of someone's opinion A Bad Thing ?
form of thoughtless bigotry be a good thing?
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 00:58:47 +0000, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 30/12/2022 16:58, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 12:33:02 +0000, Max Demian
Maybe people missed (or ignored) the Game of Thrones reference (to a
female character who walks naked through the streets and has excrement >>>> thrown over her).
I don't watch Game of Thrones so didn't recognise the reference at
all. Maybe Clarkson assumed everyone would know it and take it as
something like a "figure of speech" rather than literally, because it
was a quotation, but I suspect many like me didn't know it either and
assumed it was meant to be taken at face value. It's dangerous
assuming everyone will understand the context of what you say if it
depends on a something not everyone will know.
It was still grotesquely insulting though, even as a quotation. It's
possible to disapprove of someone's behaviour and remain reasonably
factual by giving reasons and examples, rather than ad hom insults
however eloquent you may think they are.
I've never watched/read Game of Thrones. I'm not really into that genre.
So if the much quoted comment about a female character who walks naked
through the streets and has excrement thrown over her was an allusion to
GoT, it went way over my head. I took it at face value - and to my shame
I also took the words as they were quoted (possibly out of context) in
the news stories about the reaction to the article, without going back
to the full text that Clarkson wrote.
No need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many years
ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on
BBC4 (I think)
so I saw a few of them. There seemed to be a lot of
violence and a lot of people who seemed to hate each other for no
particular reason, just because they hated each other, and never
changed their ideas or opinions as the story progressed. In other
words not much of real dramatic significance actually happened, apart
from lots of people being killed, and now it seems some of them
parading naked through showers of excrement.
One of my daughters used to work in a zoo, and she told me that the
monkeys sometimes throw excrement, so the human civilisation depicted
in this show doesn't seem to be much more advanced than monkeys.
When they moved the series to some satellite channel I felt no
incentive to acquire the necessary equipment to follow it, though I occasionally read things about it in the press, and was amused to see
that the actor Ian McShane (who appeared in it I think) summed up the
genre as "tits and dragons". It doesn't exactly exercise the mind.
Rod.
On 31/12/2022 15:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:05, Mark Carver wrote:
Why is full transparency of someone's opinion A Bad Thing ?
Why would full transparency of, say, racist, misogynist, ageist or any
form of thoughtless bigotry be a good thing?
Because we'd all know where we stand with that person, and act and treat
them accordingly.
Suppressing what they say or write, doesn't suppress what they think (in
fact probably if anything it has the opposite effect).
Shovelling unpleasantness under the carpet is not useful
On 31/12/2022 15:43, Mark Carver wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:05, Mark Carver wrote:
Why is full transparency of someone's opinion A Bad Thing ?
Why would full transparency of, say, racist, misogynist, ageist or
any form of thoughtless bigotry be a good thing?
Because we'd all know where we stand with that person, and act and
treat them accordingly.
Says a rational man, but unfortunately a sizeable section of the
sheeple, perhaps even most of them, are not actually that rational,
and publishing bigotry tends to legitimise it in the eyes of many, and
that is why it is banned.
Suppressing what they say or write, doesn't suppress what they think
(in fact probably if anything it has the opposite effect).
Who cares? What a bigot thinks in private is and should be no concern
of anyone else.
On 31/12/2022 15:43, Mark Carver wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:05, Mark Carver wrote:
Why is full transparency of someone's opinion A Bad Thing ?
Why would full transparency of, say, racist, misogynist, ageist or
any form of thoughtless bigotry be a good thing?
Because we'd all know where we stand with that person, and act and
treat them accordingly.
Says a rational man, but unfortunately a sizeable section of the
sheeple, perhaps even most of them, are not actually that rational, and publishing bigotry tends to legitimise it in the eyes of many, and that
is why it is banned.
Suppressing what they say or write, doesn't suppress what they think
(in fact probably if anything it has the opposite effect).
Who cares? What a bigot thinks in private is and should be no concern
of anyone else. What matters is what opinions are expressed publicly.
Shovelling unpleasantness under the carpet is not useful
In a perfect world, we'd all be allowed to say what we think, because,
in such a perfect world, we'd all think perfectly, but in this real and
very imperfect world, some very imperfect thoughts are best kept to
oneself, and the law reflects that.
On 31/12/2022 08:32 am, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 00:58:47 +0000, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 30/12/2022 16:58, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 12:33:02 +0000, Max Demian
Maybe people missed (or ignored) the Game of Thrones reference (to a >>>>> female character who walks naked through the streets and has excrement >>>>> thrown over her).
I don't watch Game of Thrones so didn't recognise the reference at
all. Maybe Clarkson assumed everyone would know it and take it as
something like a "figure of speech" rather than literally, because it
was a quotation, but I suspect many like me didn't know it either and
assumed it was meant to be taken at face value. It's dangerous
assuming everyone will understand the context of what you say if it
depends on a something not everyone will know.
It was still grotesquely insulting though, even as a quotation. It's
possible to disapprove of someone's behaviour and remain reasonably
factual by giving reasons and examples, rather than ad hom insults
however eloquent you may think they are.
I've never watched/read Game of Thrones. I'm not really into that genre. >>> So if the much quoted comment about a female character who walks naked
through the streets and has excrement thrown over her was an allusion to >>> GoT, it went way over my head. I took it at face value - and to my shame >>> I also took the words as they were quoted (possibly out of context) in
the news stories about the reaction to the article, without going back
to the full text that Clarkson wrote.
No need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many years
ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on
BBC4 (I think)
It was Sky Atlantic from the start, surely?
On 31/12/2022 16:12, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:43, Mark Carver wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:05, Mark Carver wrote:
Why is full transparency of someone's opinion A Bad Thing ?
Why would full transparency of, say, racist, misogynist, ageist or
any form of thoughtless bigotry be a good thing?
Because we'd all know where we stand with that person, and act and
treat them accordingly.
Says a rational man, but unfortunately a sizeable section of the
sheeple, perhaps even most of them, are not actually that rational,
and publishing bigotry tends to legitimise it in the eyes of many, and
that is why it is banned.
Suppressing what they say or write, doesn't suppress what they think
(in fact probably if anything it has the opposite effect).
Who cares? What a bigot thinks in private is and should be no concern
of anyone else. What matters is what opinions are expressed publicly.
Perhaps you'd tell us who should decide that?
Shovelling unpleasantness under the carpet is not useful
In a perfect world, we'd all be allowed to say what we think, because,
in such a perfect world, we'd all think perfectly, but in this real
and very imperfect world, some very imperfect thoughts are best kept
to oneself, and the law reflects that.
Only where it incites violence or civil unrest. Generally, it doesn't.
On 31/12/2022 16:12, Java Jive wrote:
Who cares? What a bigot thinks in private is and should be no concern
of anyone else.
It is when they decide to become a homicidal maniac because of that
bigotry, (plenty of examples of that !)
On 31/12/2022 16:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2022 16:12, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:43, Mark Carver wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:05, Mark Carver wrote:
Why is full transparency of someone's opinion A Bad Thing ?
Why would full transparency of, say, racist, misogynist, ageist or
any form of thoughtless bigotry be a good thing?
Because we'd all know where we stand with that person, and act and
treat them accordingly.
Says a rational man, but unfortunately a sizeable section of the
sheeple, perhaps even most of them, are not actually that rational,
and publishing bigotry tends to legitimise it in the eyes of many,
and that is why it is banned.
Suppressing what they say or write, doesn't suppress what they think
(in fact probably if anything it has the opposite effect).
Who cares? What a bigot thinks in private is and should be no
concern of anyone else. What matters is what opinions are expressed
publicly.
Perhaps you'd tell us who should decide that?
The government already decides that.
On 31/12/2022 17:03, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 16:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2022 16:12, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:43, Mark Carver wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:05, Mark Carver wrote:
Why is full transparency of someone's opinion A Bad Thing ?
Why would full transparency of, say, racist, misogynist, ageist or >>>>>> any form of thoughtless bigotry be a good thing?
Because we'd all know where we stand with that person, and act and
treat them accordingly.
Says a rational man, but unfortunately a sizeable section of the
sheeple, perhaps even most of them, are not actually that rational,
and publishing bigotry tends to legitimise it in the eyes of many,
and that is why it is banned.
Suppressing what they say or write, doesn't suppress what they
think (in fact probably if anything it has the opposite effect).
Who cares? What a bigot thinks in private is and should be no
concern of anyone else. What matters is what opinions are expressed
publicly.
Perhaps you'd tell us who should decide that?
The government already decides that.
It does indeed, through the laws it has in place. Er, none of which Clarkson has broken.
If you're happy with the government deciding, you must be happy with the Clarkson article being published.
No need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many years
ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on
BBC4 (I think)
It was Sky Atlantic from the start, surely?
Somebody once said that we need freedom of speech because without it
we wouldn't know who the idiots are.
On 31/12/2022 12:41, Mark Carver wrote:
On 30/12/2022 16:46, Java Jive wrote:
On 30/12/2022 16:33, Norman Wells wrote:
People are actually entitled to be extreme bigots if they want. It's
a valued freedom we all have. We can all hold our own views, and are
free to express them.
Not so, there are a great many views that you might hold that you
cannot express publicly.
You may be able suppress what people may say, but you can never suppress
what they think.
I wouldn't wish to do so.
We are all better off knowing what others think, even if it's nasty and
unsavoury.
Not so, that's why there are laws governing what you can say publicly.
On 31/12/2022 17:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2022 17:03, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 16:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2022 16:12, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:43, Mark Carver wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:05, Mark Carver wrote:
Why is full transparency of someone's opinion A Bad Thing ?
Why would full transparency of, say, racist, misogynist, ageist
or any form of thoughtless bigotry be a good thing?
Because we'd all know where we stand with that person, and act and >>>>>> treat them accordingly.
Says a rational man, but unfortunately a sizeable section of the
sheeple, perhaps even most of them, are not actually that rational,
and publishing bigotry tends to legitimise it in the eyes of many,
and that is why it is banned.
Suppressing what they say or write, doesn't suppress what they
think (in fact probably if anything it has the opposite effect).
Who cares? What a bigot thinks in private is and should be no
concern of anyone else. What matters is what opinions are
expressed publicly.
Perhaps you'd tell us who should decide that?
The government already decides that.
It does indeed, through the laws it has in place. Er, none of which
Clarkson has broken.
If you're happy with the government deciding, you must be happy with
the Clarkson article being published.
IANAL, but IMV actually it broke the law, because ...
a) It was misogynist, in other words targetting hate towards women:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64000443
"Sturgeon: Clarkson's Meghan column is "deeply misogynist"
[...]
The first minister was speaking after the TV presenter wrote a column
for The Sun in which he compared his hatred of the Duchess of Sussex
with his feelings for Ms Sturgeon and Rose West."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64025074
"On Sunday, Clarkson's own daughter Emily said: "I want to make it very
clear that I stand against everything my dad wrote about Meghan Markle.""
b) It's scandalously libellous, because by association he is equating
both Sturgeon and Markle to a convicted serial killer.
It's a pity that freedom of speech only seems to extend, as far as
you're concerned, to things you agree with.
We will see if there's any criminal prosecution or serious civil action,
but I won't be holding my breath.
If they took him to court then they might find some of the things said
proved to be true in court.
On 31/12/2022 18:47, Java Jive wrote:
IANAL, but IMV actually it broke the law, because ...
a) It was misogynist, in other words targetting hate towards women:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64000443
"Sturgeon: Clarkson's Meghan column is "deeply misogynist"
[...]
The first minister was speaking after the TV presenter wrote a column
for The Sun in which he compared his hatred of the Duchess of Sussex
with his feelings for Ms Sturgeon and Rose West."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64025074
"On Sunday, Clarkson's own daughter Emily said: "I want to make it
very clear that I stand against everything my dad wrote about Meghan
Markle.""
b) It's scandalously libellous, because by association he is equating
both Sturgeon and Markle to a convicted serial killer.
It's a pity that freedom of speech only seems to extend, as far as
you're concerned, to things you agree with.
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 15:50:01 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
No need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many years
ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on
BBC4 (I think)
It was Sky Atlantic from the start, surely?
Can't be. I've never had Sky, or any other satellite service, and I
didn't have internet streaming then. It must have been on one of the
Freeview channels because that's all I had. It was only the first
season, and then they moved it to a satellite channel.
On 31/12/2022 17:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2022 17:03, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 16:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2022 16:12, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:43, Mark Carver wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:05, Mark Carver wrote:
Why is full transparency of someone's opinion A Bad Thing ?
Why would full transparency of, say, racist, misogynist, ageist
or any form of thoughtless bigotry be a good thing?
Because we'd all know where we stand with that person, and act and >>>>>> treat them accordingly.
Says a rational man, but unfortunately a sizeable section of the
sheeple, perhaps even most of them, are not actually that rational,
and publishing bigotry tends to legitimise it in the eyes of many,
and that is why it is banned.
Suppressing what they say or write, doesn't suppress what they
think (in fact probably if anything it has the opposite effect).
Who cares? What a bigot thinks in private is and should be no
concern of anyone else. What matters is what opinions are
expressed publicly.
Perhaps you'd tell us who should decide that?
The government already decides that.
It does indeed, through the laws it has in place. Er, none of which
Clarkson has broken.
If you're happy with the government deciding, you must be happy with
the Clarkson article being published.
IANAL, but IMV actually it broke the law, because ...
a) It was misogynist, in other words targetting hate towards women:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64000443
"Sturgeon: Clarkson's Meghan column is "deeply misogynist"
On 31/12/2022 21:23, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2022 18:47, Java Jive wrote:
IANAL, but IMV actually it broke the law, because ...
a) It was misogynist, in other words targetting hate towards women:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64000443
"Sturgeon: Clarkson's Meghan column is "deeply misogynist"
[...]
The first minister was speaking after the TV presenter wrote a column
for The Sun in which he compared his hatred of the Duchess of Sussex
with his feelings for Ms Sturgeon and Rose West."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64025074
"On Sunday, Clarkson's own daughter Emily said: "I want to make it
very clear that I stand against everything my dad wrote about Meghan
Markle.""
b) It's scandalously libellous, because by association he is equating
both Sturgeon and Markle to a convicted serial killer.
It's a pity that freedom of speech only seems to extend, as far as
you're concerned, to things you agree with.
It's a pity that you seem most concerned to preserve freedom of speech
in situations where it isn't worth defending because someone has abused
the privilege of it.
GoT has never been broadcast on Freeview.
It's still being repeated on Sky.
On 31/12/2022 07:21 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 15:50:01 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
No need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many years
ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on
BBC4 (I think)
It was Sky Atlantic from the start, surely?
Can't be. I've never had Sky, or any other satellite service, and I
didn't have internet streaming then. It must have been on one of the
Freeview channels because that's all I had. It was only the first
season, and then they moved it to a satellite channel.
GoT has never been broadcast on Freeview.
On 29/12/2022 18:14, NY wrote:
But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort of sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew shared the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article
where I knew my opinions could cause offence to people that thought differently to me. What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper thinking for publishing the article?
+1 The man's a deeply unpleasant shit, that's all there is to it.
In article <toks65$dbjr$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 29/12/2022 18:14, NY wrote:
But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort of
sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew
shared the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article
where I knew my opinions could cause offence to people that thought
differently to me. What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper
thinking for publishing the article?
+1 The man's a deeply unpleasant shit, that's all there is to it.
My view is that he's a rent-a-gob who does it to attract media attention
and (he hopes) some money. Promotes the "Clarkson brand". But since I have
no interest in Cars, etc, largely passes me by.
On 31/12/2022 07:21 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 15:50:01 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
Can't be. I've never had Sky, or any other satellite service, and INo need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many
years
ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on
BBC4 (I think)
It was Sky Atlantic from the start, surely?
didn't have internet streaming then. It must have been on one of the
Freeview channels because that's all I had. It was only the first
season, and then they moved it to a satellite channel.
GoT has never been broadcast on Freeview.
It's still being repeated on Sky.
We are all better off knowing what others think, even if it's nasty and unsavoury.
In the case of Mr Clarkson, points noted Jeremy, and I'll keep it in mind next time you make a statement.
On 31/12/2022 13:32, Mark Carver wrote:
Your opinion of MM exactly mirrors mine
They keep calling her 'black' but she is 'mixed race'.
If someone did not know her back story, I wonder how many would consider
her 'black' or even 'mixed race' from a photograph?
Looking yesterday at the pictures of various 'celebrities' in the
newspaper pages, most have a darker skintone even without heavy
sunbathing.
Despite all the fuss when she was pregnant about whether the Royal Family would accept a 'black' baby, from what little we have seen of both
children they seem to have little trace of any such ancestry.
Did they explain why she claimed they wed three days before their
televised do with "just the two of us" and the Archbishop?
You can't get married in England without at least 2 Witnesses and it
needs
to be in licenced premises.
In article <toks65$dbjr$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 29/12/2022 18:14, NY wrote:My view is that he's a rent-a-gob who does it to attract media attention
But nothing, repeat nothing, would induce me to express the sort of+1 The man's a deeply unpleasant shit, that's all there is to it.
sentiments that Clarkson did - probably not even to people who I knew
shared the same feelings, and *definitely* not in a published article
where I knew my opinions could cause offence to people that thought
differently to me. What was he thinking? And what was the newspaper
thinking for publishing the article?
and (he hopes) some money. Promotes the "Clarkson brand". But since I have
no interest in Cars, etc, largely passes me by.
On 31/12/2022 21:23, Norman Wells wrote:
It's a pity that freedom of speech only seems to extend, as far as
you're concerned, to things you agree with.
We will see if there's any criminal prosecution or serious civil action,
but I won't be holding my breath.
If they took him to court then they might find some of the things said
proved to be true in court.
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message news:5a5f7982eecharles@candehope.me.uk...
Did they explain why she claimed they wed three days before their
televised do with "just the two of us" and the Archbishop?
You can't get married in England without at least 2 Witnesses and it
needs
to be in licenced premises.
*We* know that. I imagine a majority of people in the UK know it. But
does she? Does she genuinely believe that the private meeting with her,
Harry and the archbishop (probably a rehearsal *) was the legal
marriage, and the event in public a few days later was a re-run for the cameras?
On 31/12/2022 12:02, Martin wrote:
Analysis by the Daily Mail and the Sun?
The usual from the Left "if in doubt blame on the Daily Mail or Sun"!
When they will often believe anything in a tabloid like the Guardian or
even worse, the Daily Maxwell.
On 01/01/2023 11:25, NY wrote:
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message
news:5a5f7982eecharles@candehope.me.uk...
Did they explain why she claimed they wed three days before their
televised do with "just the two of us" and the Archbishop?
You can't get married in England without at least 2 Witnesses and it
needs
to be in licenced premises.
*We* know that. I imagine a majority of people in the UK know it. But
does she? Does she genuinely believe that the private meeting with her,
Harry and the archbishop (probably a rehearsal *) was the legal marriage,
and the event in public a few days later was a re-run for the cameras?
Some of us are sad enough to know that it's not quite so simple. E.g. a Jewish or Quaker wedding can take place anywhere and there's no
requirement for witnesses to attend.
Ah, perhaps Meghan was right 'cos she and Harry have converted and the Archbishop is also a rabbi...
I have an interest in cars, but ones I can afford or can easily aspire to with a little bit more money. Ferraris etc leave me cold. The old Top Gear was great. The new one is an excuse for "lads" to act the giddy goat. But I've got (almost) 60 years experience of being in minority.
I've forgotten when I first learned that she was mixed-race. Quite a while after we first saw her as Harry's fiancee, maybe not until shortly before
the wedding when I first saw photos of her mother. But it really doesn't matter: so Harry chose a woman who was mixed-race - big deal. It's not as if any of their children stand a chance of being the next monarch (barring a "King Ralph" mass-death event). And even if the next monarch*was* quarter-black - so what.
On 31/12/2022 07:21 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 15:50:01 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
No need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many years
ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on
BBC4 (I think)
It was Sky Atlantic from the start, surely?
Can't be. I've never had Sky, or any other satellite service, and I
didn't have internet streaming then. It must have been on one of the
Freeview channels because that's all I had. It was only the first
season, and then they moved it to a satellite channel.
GoT has never been broadcast on Freeview.
It's still being repeated on Sky.
In message <k1c8ohF209sU4@mid.individual.net>, JNugent ><jenningsandco@mail.com> writes
On 31/12/2022 07:21 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 15:50:01 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
Can't be. I've never had Sky, or any other satellite service, and INo need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many
years
ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on
BBC4 (I think)
It was Sky Atlantic from the start, surely?
didn't have internet streaming then. It must have been on one of the
Freeview channels because that's all I had. It was only the first
season, and then they moved it to a satellite channel.
GoT has never been broadcast on Freeview.
It's still being repeated on Sky.
Could Sky have put Series 1 on Pick, their FTA Freeview channel, at some >point?--
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message >news:k1aovmFp9ubU1@mid.individual.net...
We are all better off knowing what others think, even if it's nasty and
unsavoury.
In the case of Mr Clarkson, points noted Jeremy, and I'll keep it in mind
next time you make a statement.
At the back of my mind is the thought that JC may not even have meant >everything he said in That Article; he may have been saying it to be >provocative. That's why he made such a pig's ear of apologising: he may have >been apologising for something he didn't actually believe, deep down. But I >could be wrong: maybe he really *is* the nasty individual that he portrays.
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message >news:5a5f7982eecharles@candehope.me.uk...
Did they explain why she claimed they wed three days before their
televised do with "just the two of us" and the Archbishop?
You can't get married in England without at least 2 Witnesses and it
needs
to be in licenced premises.
*We* know that. I imagine a majority of people in the UK know it. But does >she? Does she genuinely believe that the private meeting with her, Harry and >the archbishop (probably a rehearsal *) was the legal marriage, and the
event in public a few days later was a re-run for the cameras?
"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:topkj2$11thm$1@dont-email.me...
On 31/12/2022 13:32, Mark Carver wrote:
Your opinion of MM exactly mirrors mine
They keep calling her 'black' but she is 'mixed race'.
If someone did not know her back story, I wonder how many would consider
her 'black' or even 'mixed race' from a photograph?
Looking yesterday at the pictures of various 'celebrities' in the
newspaper pages, most have a darker skintone even without heavy
sunbathing.
Despite all the fuss when she was pregnant about whether the Royal Family
would accept a 'black' baby, from what little we have seen of both
children they seem to have little trace of any such ancestry.
I've forgotten when I first learned that she was mixed-race. Quite a while >after we first saw her as Harry's fiancee, maybe not until shortly before
the wedding when I first saw photos of her mother. But it really doesn't >matter: so Harry chose a woman who was mixed-race - big deal. It's not as if >any of their children stand a chance of being the next monarch (barring a >"King Ralph" mass-death event). And even if the next monarch *was* >quarter-black - so what.
On 01/01/2023 11:31, NY wrote:
I've forgotten when I first learned that she was mixed-race. Quite a while >> after we first saw her as Harry's fiancee, maybe not until shortly before
the wedding when I first saw photos of her mother. But it really doesn't
matter: so Harry chose a woman who was mixed-race - big deal. It's not as if >> any of their children stand a chance of being the next monarch (barring a
"King Ralph" mass-death event). And even if the next monarch*was*
quarter-black - so what.
It shouldn't matter except for her and her fans going on and on about >discrimination because she is 'black'.
On Sun, 1 Jan 2023 11:25:42 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message >>news:5a5f7982eecharles@candehope.me.uk...
Did they explain why she claimed they wed three days before their
televised do with "just the two of us" and the Archbishop?
You can't get married in England without at least 2 Witnesses and it
needs
to be in licenced premises.
*We* know that. I imagine a majority of people in the UK know it. But does >>she? Does she genuinely believe that the private meeting with her, Harry >>and
the archbishop (probably a rehearsal *) was the legal marriage, and the >>event in public a few days later was a re-run for the cameras?
Did she actually say this?
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> writes
Roderick Stewart wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
No need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many years >>>>> ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on
BBC4 (I think)
It was Sky Atlantic from the start, surely?
 Can't be. I've never had Sky, or any other satellite service, and I
didn't have internet streaming then. It must have been on one of the
Freeview channels because that's all I had. It was only the first
season, and then they moved it to a satellite channel.
GoT has never been broadcast on Freeview.
It's still being repeated on Sky.
Could Sky have put Series 1 on Pick, their FTA Freeview channel, at some point?
On 01/01/2023 11:16 am, John Hall wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> writes
Roderick Stewart wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
No need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many years >>>>>> ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on >>>>>> BBC4 (I think)
It was Sky Atlantic from the start, surely?
 Can't be. I've never had Sky, or any other satellite service, and I
didn't have internet streaming then. It must have been on one of the
Freeview channels because that's all I had. It was only the first
season, and then they moved it to a satellite channel.
GoT has never been broadcast on Freeview.
It's still being repeated on Sky.
Could Sky have put Series 1 on Pick, their FTA Freeview channel, at
some point?
Only if permitted to do so by HBO.
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
No need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many years >>>>> ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on
BBC4 (I think)
It was Sky Atlantic from the start, surely?
Can't be. I've never had Sky, or any other satellite service, and I
didn't have internet streaming then. It must have been on one of the
Freeview channels because that's all I had. It was only the first
season, and then they moved it to a satellite channel.
GoT has never been broadcast on Freeview.
And yet somehow, I can remember seeing the first season of it in my
own home, on my own TV set, despite (until internet streaming many
years later) never having had any other source of broadcast television available to me than terrestrial broadcasts. How can this be explained
if it was never broadcast on a terrestrial service?
I definitely saw
it at home, and I'm reasonably confident I wasn't hallucinating.
Maybe it was when DTTV wasn't yet technically called "Freeview" but
was simply duplicating the analogue broadcasts in widescreen, but it
cannot have been on satellite because I've never had satellite.
On 01/01/2023 11:18, NY wrote:
I have an interest in cars, but ones I can afford or can easily aspire to
with a little bit more money. Ferraris etc leave me cold. The old Top
Gear was great. The new one is an excuse for "lads" to act the giddy goat. >> But I've got (almost) 60 years experience of being in minority.
Not sure which "old" Top Gear you mean as there have been many incarnations. The 'reviews' during Clarksons' days seemed to consist of driving the car around in circles, wearing away the very expensive
tyres. And perhaps getting excited about a 0.01 second reduction in the
0 to 60 mph time.
Not watched it since it moved wherever it moved and not not watched the latest BBC version as the presenters seem just as moronic as the
previous ones.
"Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message news:3be68d06-d4ab-e9dd-252b-cabc1d3cf3b4@outlook.com...
On 01/01/2023 11:25, NY wrote:
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message
news:5a5f7982eecharles@candehope.me.uk...
Did they explain why she claimed they wed three days before their
televised do with "just the two of us" and the Archbishop?
You can't get married in England without at least 2 Witnesses and
it needs
to be in licenced premises.
*We* know that. I imagine a majority of people in the UK know it. But
does she? Does she genuinely believe that the private meeting with
her, Harry and the archbishop (probably a rehearsal *) was the legal
marriage, and the event in public a few days later was a re-run for
the cameras?
Some of us are sad enough to know that it's not quite so simple. E.g.
a Jewish or Quaker wedding can take place anywhere and there's no
requirement for witnesses to attend.
Ah, perhaps Meghan was right 'cos she and Harry have converted and the
Archbishop is also a rabbi...
I didn't know that *any* wedding was valid without being performed
either in a certified place of worship, or in a certified location such
as a register office or an approved hotel etc. I thought that location
and witnesses, and approved forms of words (in terms of the sense if not
the precise wording), were a legal part of *any* wedding, no matter what religion.
In other words, if a religious wedding doesn't conform to the secular stipulations, it is a ceremony only and there has to be a brief ticking-the-boxes-to-make-it-legal session with the registrar
afterwards, maybe with registrar's staff as witnesses.
On Sun, 1 Jan 2023 11:25:42 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message
news:5a5f7982eecharles@candehope.me.uk...
Did they explain why she claimed they wed three days before their
televised do with "just the two of us" and the Archbishop?
You can't get married in England without at least 2 Witnesses and it
needs
to be in licenced premises.
*We* know that. I imagine a majority of people in the UK know it. But does >> she? Does she genuinely believe that the private meeting with her, Harry and >> the archbishop (probably a rehearsal *) was the legal marriage, and the
event in public a few days later was a re-run for the cameras?
Did she actually say this?
On 01/01/2023 11:25, NY wrote:
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message
news:5a5f7982eecharles@candehope.me.uk...
Did they explain why she claimed they wed three days before their
televised do with "just the two of us" and the Archbishop?
You can't get married in England without at least 2 Witnesses and it
needs
to be in licenced premises.
*We* know that. I imagine a majority of people in the UK know it. But
does she? Does she genuinely believe that the private meeting with
her, Harry and the archbishop (probably a rehearsal *) was the legal
marriage, and the event in public a few days later was a re-run for
the cameras?
Some of us are sad enough to know that it's not quite so simple. E.g. a Jewish or Quaker wedding can take place anywhere and there's no
requirement for witnesses to attend.
On 01/01/2023 13:01, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2023 11:25:42 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message
news:5a5f7982eecharles@candehope.me.uk...
Did they explain why she claimed they wed three days before their
televised do with "just the two of us" and the Archbishop?
You can't get married in England without at least 2 Witnesses and it >>>> needs
to be in licenced premises.
*We* know that. I imagine a majority of people in the UK know it. But
does
she? Does she genuinely believe that the private meeting with her,
Harry and
the archbishop (probably a rehearsal *) was the legal marriage, and the
event in public a few days later was a re-run for the cameras?
Did she actually say this?
"You know, three days before our wedding, we got married."
On Sun, 1 Jan 2023 02:16:49 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2022 07:21 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 15:50:01 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
No need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many years >>>>> ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on
BBC4 (I think)
It was Sky Atlantic from the start, surely?
Can't be. I've never had Sky, or any other satellite service, and I
didn't have internet streaming then. It must have been on one of the
Freeview channels because that's all I had. It was only the first
season, and then they moved it to a satellite channel.
GoT has never been broadcast on Freeview.
It's still being repeated on Sky.
According to imdb.com Series 1 was on a video. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13380510/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2
a) It was misogynist, in other words targetting hate towards women:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64000443
"Sturgeon: Clarkson's Meghan column is "deeply misogynist"
[...]
The first minister was speaking after the TV presenter wrote a column
for The Sun in which he compared his hatred of the Duchess of Sussex
with his feelings for Ms Sturgeon and Rose West."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64025074
"On Sunday, Clarkson's own daughter Emily said: "I want to make it very
clear that I stand against everything my dad wrote about Meghan Markle.""
b) It's scandalously libellous, because by association he is equating
both Sturgeon and Markle to a convicted serial killer.
On 01/01/2023 11:25, NY wrote:
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message news:5a5f7982eecharles@candehope.me.uk...
Did they explain why she claimed they wed three days before their
televised do with "just the two of us" and the Archbishop?
You can't get married in England without at least 2 Witnesses and it
needs
to be in licenced premises.
*We* know that. I imagine a majority of people in the UK know it. But
does she? Does she genuinely believe that the private meeting with her, Harry and the archbishop (probably a rehearsal *) was the legal
marriage, and the event in public a few days later was a re-run for the cameras?
Some of us are sad enough to know that it's not quite so simple. E.g. a Jewish or Quaker wedding can take place anywhere and there's no
requirement for witnesses to attend.
Ah, perhaps Meghan was right 'cos she and Harry have converted and the Archbishop is also a rabbi...
-
On 31/12/2022 18:47, Java Jive wrote:
a) It was misogynist, in other words targetting hate towards women:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64000443
"Sturgeon: Clarkson's Meghan column is "deeply misogynist"
[...]
The first minister was speaking after the TV presenter wrote a column
for The Sun in which he compared his hatred of the Duchess of Sussex
with his feelings for Ms Sturgeon and Rose West."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64025074
Sturgeon, who doesn't know what a woman is. How can such a person speak
of misogyny?
"On Sunday, Clarkson's own daughter Emily said: "I want to make it
very clear that I stand against everything my dad wrote about Meghan
Markle.""
b) It's scandalously libellous, because by association he is equating
both Sturgeon and Markle to a convicted serial killer.
I'm sure they can both cope with the comparison.
On 01/01/2023 16:51, Max Demian wrote:
On 31/12/2022 18:47, Java Jive wrote:
a) It was misogynist, in other words targetting hate towards women:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64000443
"Sturgeon: Clarkson's Meghan column is "deeply misogynist"
[...]
The first minister was speaking after the TV presenter wrote a column
for The Sun in which he compared his hatred of the Duchess of Sussex
with his feelings for Ms Sturgeon and Rose West."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64025074
Sturgeon, who doesn't know what a woman is. How can such a person
speak of misogyny?
A bollocks comment which is of itself more misogynist shit, making you
just as bad as Clarkson.
In article <3be68d06-d4ab-e9dd-252b-cabc1d3cf3b4@outlook.com>,
Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 01/01/2023 11:25, NY wrote:
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message
news:5a5f7982eecharles@candehope.me.uk...
Did they explain why she claimed they wed three days before their
televised do with "just the two of us" and the Archbishop?
You can't get married in England without at least 2 Witnesses and it
needs
to be in licenced premises.
*We* know that. I imagine a majority of people in the UK know it. But
does she? Does she genuinely believe that the private meeting with her,
Harry and the archbishop (probably a rehearsal *) was the legal
marriage, and the event in public a few days later was a re-run for the
cameras?
Some of us are sad enough to know that it's not quite so simple. E.g. a
Jewish or Quaker wedding can take place anywhere and there's no
requirement for witnesses to attend.
That the religious wedding; you still need a legally valid marriage.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jul/24/johnezard
Freedom to offend *WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE* is not a freedom worth
having! Whatever happened to the old tradition that in general you
should respect others unless given particular, good, and just reason
not to do so? Effectively all Clarkson was doing was publicising,
and thereby endeavouring to legitimise, his own massive character
failing of extreme bigotry. To any rational individual reading it,
his irrational tirade explains a great deal more about his own
shortcomings of character than it does about about the people he
targetted.
People are actually entitled to be extreme bigots if they want. It's a valued freedom we all have. We can all hold our own views, and are free
to express them.
Jewish and Quaker weddings are covered by specific and explicit
provisions in the Marriage Act 1949 (as amended). If carried out to the >terms in the Act they are as valid as a marriage in accordance with -
say - the Act's provisions for a marriage according to the rites of the >Church of England. Any of the 3 can be called a "religious wedding";
all are legally valid.
GoT has never been broadcast on Freeview.
And yet somehow, I can remember seeing the first season of it in my
own home, on my own TV set, despite (until internet streaming many
years later) never having had any other source of broadcast television
available to me than terrestrial broadcasts. How can this be explained
if it was never broadcast on a terrestrial service?
By faulty memory. It has never been broadcast on a Freeview channel.
I definitely saw
it at home, and I'm reasonably confident I wasn't hallucinating.
DVD from box-set?
DVD-R recorded off-air by a Sky subscriber?
In message <k1c8ohF209sU4@mid.individual.net>, JNugent ><jenningsandco@mail.com> writes
On 31/12/2022 07:21 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 15:50:01 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
Can't be. I've never had Sky, or any other satellite service, and INo need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many
years
ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on
BBC4 (I think)
It was Sky Atlantic from the start, surely?
didn't have internet streaming then. It must have been on one of the
Freeview channels because that's all I had. It was only the first
season, and then they moved it to a satellite channel.
GoT has never been broadcast on Freeview.
It's still being repeated on Sky.
Could Sky have put Series 1 on Pick, their FTA Freeview channel, at some >point?
On 01/01/2023 12:19 pm, MB wrote:
On 01/01/2023 11:18, NY wrote:
I have an interest in cars, but ones I can afford or can easily aspire to >>> with a little bit more money. Ferraris etc leave me cold. The old Top
Gear was great. The new one is an excuse for "lads" to act the giddy goat. >>> But I've got (almost) 60 years experience of being in minority.
Not sure which "old" Top Gear you mean as there have been many
incarnations. The 'reviews' during Clarksons' days seemed to consist of
driving the car around in circles, wearing away the very expensive
tyres. And perhaps getting excited about a 0.01 second reduction in the
0 to 60 mph time.
Not watched it since it moved wherever it moved and not not watched the
latest BBC version as the presenters seem just as moronic as the
previous ones.
When it started, wasn't it about cars and driving (a bit like Thames
TV's series "Drive In")?
On Sun, 1 Jan 2023 23:21:34 +0000, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
Jewish and Quaker weddings are covered by specific and explicit
provisions in the Marriage Act 1949 (as amended). If carried out to the
terms in the Act they are as valid as a marriage in accordance with -
say - the Act's provisions for a marriage according to the rites of the
Church of England. Any of the 3 can be called a "religious wedding";
all are legally valid.
How can anything be legally valid if the Law doesn't know that it took
place? Regardless of what ceremony they perform, the fact that a
couple are married would have to be officially recognised and recorded somewhere in order for all the various legal consequences to come into
effect - tax and inheritance rules, ownership of propeerty,
guardianship of children etc etc.
How can anything be legally valid if the Law doesn't know that it took
place? Regardless of what ceremony they perform, the fact that a
couple are married would have to be officially recognised and recorded somewhere in order for all the various legal consequences to come into
effect - tax and inheritance rules, ownership of propeerty,
guardianship of children etc etc.
Could Sky have put Series 1 on Pick, their FTA Freeview channel, at someSky could do whatever they liked but I'd never see it because I've
point?
never had Sky, or any other satellite service.
On Sun, 1 Jan 2023 11:16:14 +0000, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
wrote:
In message <k1c8ohF209sU4@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jenningsandco@mail.com> writes
On 31/12/2022 07:21 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 15:50:01 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
Can't be. I've never had Sky, or any other satellite service, and INo need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many
years
ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on >>>>>> BBC4 (I think)
It was Sky Atlantic from the start, surely?
didn't have internet streaming then. It must have been on one of the
Freeview channels because that's all I had. It was only the first
season, and then they moved it to a satellite channel.
GoT has never been broadcast on Freeview.
It's still being repeated on Sky.
Could Sky have put Series 1 on Pick, their FTA Freeview channel, at some
point?
Sky could do whatever they liked but I'd never see it because I've
never had Sky, or any other satellite service.
On 02/01/2023 10:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Could Sky have put Series 1 on Pick, their FTA Freeview channel, at some >>> point?
Sky could do whatever they liked but I'd never see it because I've
never had Sky, or any other satellite service.
Pick was available as a terrestrial channel, under the Freeview
programme guide.
On 02/01/2023 10:52 am, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2023 11:16:14 +0000, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>Pick is a channel owned by Sky (it might have been called "Sky 2" or
wrote:
In message <k1c8ohF209sU4@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jenningsandco@mail.com> writes
On 31/12/2022 07:21 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 15:50:01 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> >>>>> wrote:
Can't be. I've never had Sky, or any other satellite service, and I >>>>> didn't have internet streaming then. It must have been on one of the >>>>> Freeview channels because that's all I had. It was only the firstNo need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many
years
ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on >>>>>>> BBC4 (I think)
It was Sky Atlantic from the start, surely?
season, and then they moved it to a satellite channel.
GoT has never been broadcast on Freeview.
It's still being repeated on Sky.
Could Sky have put Series 1 on Pick, their FTA Freeview channel, at some >>> point?
Sky could do whatever they liked but I'd never see it because I've
never had Sky, or any other satellite service.
"Sky 3" at one time) and broadcast via satellite, but also on Freeview.
It's currently on Channel 36.
As I posted yesterday, there is some evidence that Pick broadcast the
first three episodes of Season 1 of Game Of Thrones", late in 2012.
But just those three. None of the rest of it.
On 31/12/2022 15:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:05, Mark Carver wrote:
Why would full transparency of, say, racist, misogynist, ageist or any
Why is full transparency of someone's opinion A Bad Thing ?
form of thoughtless bigotry be a good thing?
Because we'd all know where we stand with that person, and act and treat
them accordingly. Suppressing what they say or write, doesn't suppress
what they think (in fact probably if anything it has the opposite
effect).
Shovelling unpleasantness under the carpet is not useful
Not so, that's why there are laws governing what you can say publicly.
Why is full transparency of someone's opinion A Bad Thing ?
In article <k1b3laFqrejU2@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver ><mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:05, Mark Carver wrote:Because we'd all know where we stand with that person, and act and treat
Why would full transparency of, say, racist, misogynist, ageist or any
Why is full transparency of someone's opinion A Bad Thing ?
form of thoughtless bigotry be a good thing?
them accordingly. Suppressing what they say or write, doesn't suppress
what they think (in fact probably if anything it has the opposite
effect).
Shovelling unpleasantness under the carpet is not useful
Indeed. But despite what you say above there are laws in various places >about, say, 'opinions' that deny that The Holocaust (Shoah) ever happened. >The point being that asserted falsehoods as 'fact' can lead to damage or >suffering for others
Jim
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 10:07:12 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <k1b3laFqrejU2@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2022 15:05, Mark Carver wrote:Because we'd all know where we stand with that person, and act and treat >>> them accordingly. Suppressing what they say or write, doesn't suppress
Why would full transparency of, say, racist, misogynist, ageist or any >>>> form of thoughtless bigotry be a good thing?
Why is full transparency of someone's opinion A Bad Thing ?
what they think (in fact probably if anything it has the opposite
effect).
Shovelling unpleasantness under the carpet is not useful
Indeed. But despite what you say above there are laws in various places
about, say, 'opinions' that deny that The Holocaust (Shoah) ever happened. >> The point being that asserted falsehoods as 'fact' can lead to damage or
suffering for others
If we want to devise laws about falsehoods, it's also necessary to be
able to define for legal purposes what a falsehood is. Who gets to
decide what is a true fact and what words are acceptable to describe
it? Also, how do you deal with fiction? A carelessly worded law could
make a lot of our existing culture illegal.
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 16:34:06 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 02/01/2023 10:52 am, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2023 11:16:14 +0000, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>Pick is a channel owned by Sky (it might have been called "Sky 2" or
wrote:
In message <k1c8ohF209sU4@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jenningsandco@mail.com> writes
On 31/12/2022 07:21 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 15:50:01 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Can't be. I've never had Sky, or any other satellite service, and I >>>>>> didn't have internet streaming then. It must have been on one of the >>>>>> Freeview channels because that's all I had. It was only the firstNo need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many >>>>>>>> years
ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on >>>>>>>> BBC4 (I think)
It was Sky Atlantic from the start, surely?
season, and then they moved it to a satellite channel.
GoT has never been broadcast on Freeview.
It's still being repeated on Sky.
Could Sky have put Series 1 on Pick, their FTA Freeview channel, at some >>>> point?
Sky could do whatever they liked but I'd never see it because I've
never had Sky, or any other satellite service.
"Sky 3" at one time) and broadcast via satellite, but also on Freeview.
It's currently on Channel 36.
As I posted yesterday, there is some evidence that Pick broadcast the
first three episodes of Season 1 of Game Of Thrones", late in 2012.
But just those three. None of the rest of it.
That suggestion is at least possible because I know I didn't see it on satellite. My recollection is that it was on BBC4, but it's possible I
was mistaken about which channel. It's also possible that I only saw
three episodes before deciding that a load of pseudo-medieval
bloodthirsty nonsense was not for me.
On 03/01/2023 08:35 am, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 16:34:06 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>Fair enough. Glad we got it sorted!
wrote:
On 02/01/2023 10:52 am, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2023 11:16:14 +0000, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> >>>> wrote:Pick is a channel owned by Sky (it might have been called "Sky 2" or
In message <k1c8ohF209sU4@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jenningsandco@mail.com> writes
On 31/12/2022 07:21 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 15:50:01 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
  Can't be. I've never had Sky, or any other satellite service, >>>>>>> and INo need to be ashamed of not recognising Game of Thrones. Many >>>>>>>>> years
ago when I still watched broadcast TV they put the first season on >>>>>>>>> BBC4 (I think)
It was Sky Atlantic from the start, surely?
didn't have internet streaming then. It must have been on one of the >>>>>>> Freeview channels because that's all I had. It was only the first >>>>>>> season, and then they moved it to a satellite channel.
GoT has never been broadcast on Freeview.
It's still being repeated on Sky.
Could Sky have put Series 1 on Pick, their FTA Freeview channel, at
some
point?
Sky could do whatever they liked but I'd never see it because I've
never had Sky, or any other satellite service.
"Sky 3" at one time) and broadcast via satellite, but also on Freeview.
It's currently on Channel 36.
As I posted yesterday, there is some evidence that Pick broadcast the
first three episodes of Season 1 of Game Of Thrones", late in 2012.
But just those three. None of the rest of it.
That suggestion is at least possible because I know I didn't see it on
satellite. My recollection is that it was on BBC4, but it's possible I
was mistaken about which channel. It's also possible that I only saw
three episodes before deciding that a load of pseudo-medieval
bloodthirsty nonsense was not for me.
On 03/01/2023 10:23, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 10:07:12 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
Indeed. But despite what you say above there are laws in various places
about, say, 'opinions' that deny that The Holocaust (Shoah) ever
happened.
The point being that asserted falsehoods as 'fact' can lead to damage or >>> suffering for others
If we want to devise laws about falsehoods, it's also necessary to be
able to define for legal purposes what a falsehood is. Who gets to
decide what is a true fact and what words are acceptable to describe
it?
Also, how do you deal with fiction? A carelessly worded law could
make a lot of our existing culture illegal.
If it's impermissible to deny something that others hold dear, how are
we to determine what is true and what is false?
It wouldn't be too long before it would be a crime to insist that Jesus
was the Messiah; a thing that religious Jews obviously would deny.
On 03/01/2023 11:46, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/01/2023 10:23, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 10:07:12 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
Indeed. But despite what you say above there are laws in various places >>>> about, say, 'opinions' that deny that The Holocaust (Shoah) ever
happened.
The point being that asserted falsehoods as 'fact' can lead to
damage or
suffering for others
If we want to devise laws about falsehoods, it's also necessary to be
able to define for legal purposes what a falsehood is. Who gets to
decide what is a true fact and what words are acceptable to describe
it?
Ultimately, only the scientific method - in which I include a
scientific approach to history working back to contemporaneous records,
etc - is capable of deciding that.
Also, how do you deal with fiction? A carelessly worded law could
make a lot of our existing culture illegal.
No, not really! Austen, the Brontes, and Dickens are safe enough, but
in a more honest world Dan Brown, who wrote at the very beginning of his fictional novel "The Da Vinci Code" that everything in the book was
fact, wouldn't have been able to get away with such a blatant lie, and neither would the writers of pseudo-scientific forgeries such as Erik
Von Daniken. Many would think that a very reasonable result!
On 03/01/2023 15:02, Java Jive wrote:
On 03/01/2023 11:46, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/01/2023 10:23, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 10:07:12 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
Indeed. But despite what you say above there are laws in various
places
about, say, 'opinions' that deny that The Holocaust (Shoah) ever
happened.
The point being that asserted falsehoods as 'fact' can lead to
damage or
suffering for others
If we want to devise laws about falsehoods, it's also necessary to be
able to define for legal purposes what a falsehood is. Who gets to
decide what is a true fact and what words are acceptable to describe
it?
Ultimately, only the scientific method - in which I include a
scientific approach to history working back to contemporaneous
records, etc - is capable of deciding that.
Also, how do you deal with fiction? A carelessly worded law could
make a lot of our existing culture illegal.
No, not really! Austen, the Brontes, and Dickens are safe enough, but
in a more honest world Dan Brown, who wrote at the very beginning of
his fictional novel "The Da Vinci Code" that everything in the book
was fact, wouldn't have been able to get away with such a blatant lie,
and neither would the writers of pseudo-scientific forgeries such as
Erik Von Daniken. Many would think that a very reasonable result!
Actually there is a genre of novel which starts with a preface that
tries to make out that it is a true story, including tales of how it
came into the author's knowledge. (A found manuscript; a tale told in a
pub.) But this is understood to be part of the fiction.
We had a chance to separate the legal from the religious aspects of
union with the introduction of "civil partnerships", but failed.
On Sun, 1 Jan 2023 14:53:41 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 01/01/2023 12:19 pm, MB wrote:
On 01/01/2023 11:18, NY wrote:
I have an interest in cars, but ones I can afford or can easily aspire to >>>> with a little bit more money. Ferraris etc leave me cold. The old Top
Gear was great. The new one is an excuse for "lads" to act the giddy goat. >>>> But I've got (almost) 60 years experience of being in minority.
Not sure which "old" Top Gear you mean as there have been many
incarnations. The 'reviews' during Clarksons' days seemed to consist of >>> driving the car around in circles, wearing away the very expensive
tyres. And perhaps getting excited about a 0.01 second reduction in the
0 to 60 mph time.
Not watched it since it moved wherever it moved and not not watched the
latest BBC version as the presenters seem just as moronic as the
previous ones.
When it started, wasn't it about cars and driving (a bit like Thames
TV's series "Drive In")?
It was, and there were a few other programmes of the same ilk on the
other channels, serving the need for the public to decide what car
would be best for their needs. They'd cover such things as fuel
economy, lifespan, cost of repairs and availability of spares, safety, comfort, and whether you could fit a large suitcase in the boot, in
other words things that a real driver would want to know.
The boy racer mentality seems to have infected a lot of the online
advice about computers too, as it mostly seem to be about squeezing imperceptible speed increments out of grossly expensive and power
hungry monster installations, rather than choosing and configuring
sensible equipment that's actually useful for what you want to do.
Maybe this is an inevitable tendency in any branch of technology as
its complexity increases with time and the general understanding of it decreases so there is less meaningful material to talk about.
On 01/01/2023 03:32 pm, Robin wrote:
Did she actually say this?
"You know, three days before our wedding, we got married."
Surely only a very stupid person could / would say such a thing?
It shouldn't matter except for her and her fans going on and on about discrimination because she is 'black'.
On 01/01/2023 16:22, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2023 03:32 pm, Robin wrote:
Did she actually say this?
"You know, three days before our wedding, we got married."
Surely only a very stupid person could / would say such a thing?
What does that imply about MM? ;-)
On 01/01/2023 16:35, Max Demian wrote:
We had a chance to separate the legal from the religious aspects of
union with the introduction of "civil partnerships", but failed.
At least the wording of the secular wedding ceremony (ie as carried out
by a registrar rather than a vicar or other religious "minister")
doesn't stipulate the precise wording to be used by the registrar and by
the couple saying their wows, as long a certain concepts are included
such as "does anyone know why this couple should not get married?".
Couples can choose whether or not to include the "obey" of the "love,
honour and obey" clause (as worded in the traditional ceremony).
Why is it that England (and maybe Wales and Northern Ireland - I don't
know) stipulates that weddings have to take place in designated
authorised places, and that these must be permanently under cover,
whereas AIUI Scotland allows weddings to take place in the open air (a
garden or on a beach) or in a marquee? As with so many things about the
UK, why are some parts allowed to go it alone, instead of there being
(as much as possible) a unified UK-wide set of laws/rules?
There are already various protections in place for the world's major >religions, but in reality none of them can prove their claims in any >meaningful scientific way anyway, so those protections are much more
about the avoidance of societal conflict rather than strict adherence to >fact.
But an updated
Tomorrow's World, to describe the coming of the internet, email, web
sites, online shopping, Internet of Things etc would have done well (I
would have thought).
In article <3wCdnZiatIssKSn-nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 01/01/2023 16:35, Max Demian wrote:
We had a chance to separate the legal from the religious aspects of
union with the introduction of "civil partnerships", but failed.
At least the wording of the secular wedding ceremony (ie as carried out
by a registrar rather than a vicar or other religious "minister")
doesn't stipulate the precise wording to be used by the registrar and by
the couple saying their wows, as long a certain concepts are included
such as "does anyone know why this couple should not get married?".
Couples can choose whether or not to include the "obey" of the "love,
honour and obey" clause (as worded in the traditional ceremony).
Why is it that England (and maybe Wales and Northern Ireland - I don't
know) stipulates that weddings have to take place in designated
authorised places, and that these must be permanently under cover,
whereas AIUI Scotland allows weddings to take place in the open air (a
garden or on a beach) or in a marquee? As with so many things about the
UK, why are some parts allowed to go it alone, instead of there being
(as much as possible) a unified UK-wide set of laws/rules?
One of the provisions of the Act of Union 1707
Ah, it goes back that far? Given the arrogance and bullying nature of the English and the comparative weakness of the Scots, at that time, I'm surprised the Act didn't force Scotland to give up all its individuality (eg different legal system, ability to make some of its own laws) and become
just a series of additional English counties north of Northumberland and Cumberland. I'm glad (for the Scots) that it didn't, though it gets very confusing: it would have been better if either all the "provinces" of the UK had become fully unified or else all the provinces had remained fully separate, rather than the half-and-half situation at present.
The boy racer mentality seems to have infected a lot of the online
advice about computers too, as it mostly seem to be about squeezing imperceptible speed increments out of grossly expensive and power
hungry monster installations, rather than choosing and configuring
sensible equipment that's actually useful for what you want to do.
Maybe this is an inevitable tendency in any branch of technology as
its complexity increases with time and the general understanding of it decreases so there is less meaningful material to talk about.
On 01/01/2023 16:35, Max Demian wrote:
We had a chance to separate the legal from the religious aspects of
union with the introduction of "civil partnerships", but failed.
At least the wording of the secular wedding ceremony (ie as carried out
by a registrar rather than a vicar or other religious "minister")
doesn't stipulate the precise wording to be used by the registrar and by
the couple saying their wows, as long a certain concepts are included
such as "does anyone know why this couple should not get married?".
Couples can choose whether or not to include the "obey" of the "love,
honour and obey" clause (as worded in the traditional ceremony).
They could have avoided all the kerfuffle about "same sex marriage" by extending civil partnerships to include opposite sex couples. [1]
These could eventually replace register office marriage and marriage would become a religious matter, and religions could decide who was allowed to marry (and how many).
Of course people could still have elaborate ceremonies (i.e. receptions),
and use words like "husband" and "wife" as they used to do when they spoke
of "common law" husbands and wives (which never meant anything).
On 02/01/2023 10:37, Roderick Stewart wrote:
The boy racer mentality seems to have infected a lot of the online
advice about computers too, as it mostly seem to be about squeezing
imperceptible speed increments out of grossly expensive and power
hungry monster installations, rather than choosing and configuring
sensible equipment that's actually useful for what you want to do.
Maybe this is an inevitable tendency in any branch of technology as
its complexity increases with time and the general understanding of it
decreases so there is less meaningful material to talk about.
Has anyone tried to watch the latest RI lectures on BBC4?
I used to watch them years ago and I don't remember them being quite as patronising; or the "volunteering" so obviously fake: why do the kids
all put their hands up? Are they Told To?
I find the "dame" who presents it annoying, too.
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 01/01/2023 16:35, Max Demian wrote:
We had a chance to separate the legal from the religious aspects of
union with the introduction of "civil partnerships", but failed.
At least the wording of the secular wedding ceremony (ie as carried out
by a registrar rather than a vicar or other religious "minister")
doesn't stipulate the precise wording to be used by the registrar and by >>> the couple saying their wows, as long a certain concepts are included
such as "does anyone know why this couple should not get married?".
Couples can choose whether or not to include the "obey" of the "love,
honour and obey" clause (as worded in the traditional ceremony).
Why is it that England (and maybe Wales and Northern Ireland - I don't
know) stipulates that weddings have to take place in designated
authorised places, and that these must be permanently under cover,
whereas AIUI Scotland allows weddings to take place in the open air (a
garden or on a beach) or in a marquee? As with so many things about the
UK, why are some parts allowed to go it alone, instead of there being
(as much as possible) a unified UK-wide set of laws/rules?
One of the provisions of the Act of Union 1707
Ah, it goes back that far? Given the arrogance and bullying nature of
the English and the comparative weakness of the Scots, at that time, I'm surprised the Act didn't force Scotland to give up all its individuality
(eg different legal system, ability to make some of its own laws) and
become just a series of additional English counties north of
Northumberland and Cumberland. I'm glad (for the Scots) that it didn't, though it gets very confusing: it would have been better if either all
the "provinces" of the UK had become fully unified or else all the
provinces had remained fully separate, rather than the half-and-half situation at present.
Given that England and Scotland are *allowed* to make different rules on wedding locations, I wonder why England *chose* to be more restrictive
than Scotland, and why there haven't (AFAIK) been "Scotland can do it,
why can't we?" proposals for England to relax its rules since the time
when we first allowed weddings at places other than churches and
register offices. England evidently perceives a problem with allowing
wedding ceremonies to place on beaches and in marquees in gardens, and Scotland doesn't: weird.
Is it still the case that speed limits for HGVs are different in
Scotland and England? I remember around the time that the limits were
raised (eg for 50 to 60 on single-carriageway roads) in England, seeing
big signs at the border saying that Scotland's limit was still 50. One
of the problems when two countries are *almost* the same is knowing what
laws are UK-wide and what laws are England- or Scotland- or
Wales-specific. (**)
What legislation applies when a wedding takes place on a cruise ship,
with the captain officiating? Is it the legislation of the couple's nationality or is it the legislation of the ship's registered port of
origin or the nationality of the ship-owning company (*). I didn't even
know that wedding ceremonies could take place on ships, until we were on
a cruise and got talking to a couple who had been married on that ship
on a previous cruise and who said (I'm paraphrasing) "Of course all
ship's captains are licensed to perform weddings" as if everyone knew that.
(*) Though I doubt very much that P&O, which I think of as a British
company, is actually deemed to be British-owned any more for legal and taxation purposes.
(**) The situation in Ireland is even more confusing because Northern
Ireland has speeds and distances in mph and miles, but over the border
they are in km/hr and km - I imagine there are big signs at all the
border crossing points. I remember driving from Dublin to Wexford,
trying to work out how long it would take me when the road signs were in
km and the car's speedo was calibrated in mph (the dashboard
illumination in the car was too dim for me to read the "little figures"
for the km/hr scale!).
Is it still the case that speed limits for HGVs are different in Scotland
and England? I remember around the time that the limits were raised (eg for 50 to 60 on single-carriageway roads) in England, seeing big signs at the border saying that Scotland's limit was still 50. One of the problems when two countries are*almost* the same is knowing what laws are UK-wide and
what laws are England- or Scotland- or Wales-specific. (**)
On 04/01/2023 10:01, NY wrote:
Is it still the case that speed limits for HGVs are different in
Scotland and England? I remember around the time that the limits were raised (eg for 50 to 60 on single-carriageway roads) in England, seeing
big signs at the border saying that Scotland's limit was still 50. One
of the problems when two countries are*almost* the same is knowing
what laws are UK-wide and what laws are England- or Scotland- or Wales-specific. (**)
Though I think sections of the A9 have a higher limit for HGVs though
the Talivan always seem more interested in catching cars.
There are some differences in the rules for 30 mph limits, different
distance apart for streetlights.
Also Scotland seems even keener on 20 mph limits everywhere.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:tp413d$2fu8t$2@dont-email.me...
They could have avoided all the kerfuffle about "same sex marriage" by
extending civil partnerships to include opposite sex couples. [1]
What was/is the difference between civil partnership and marriage? I've
heard of some opposite-sex couples who wanted to be allowed to form a
civil partnership (as same-sex people could), and who did not want to be married - that suggests there is an actual (or more likely, perceived) difference between the two.
On 04/01/2023 10:01 am, NY wrote:
Is it still the case that speed limits for HGVs are different in
Scotland and England? I remember around the time that the limits were
raised (eg for 50 to 60 on single-carriageway roads) in England,
seeing big signs at the border saying that Scotland's limit was still
50. One of the problems when two countries are *almost* the same is
knowing what laws are UK-wide and what laws are England- or Scotland-
or Wales-specific. (**)
Speed limits are the same: 60 / 70 unless a lower signed limit applies,
and automatically 30 on a road with street lights less than a prescribed distance apart.
It'll be different now because the M6 has effectively been extended
northward (partly as M6, mainly as A74(M)), but on getting onto the A74
north of the old M6 termination, there used to be signs saying "_A_74 - Commercial vehicles follow correct speed limit" (because lorries were
limited to 40 or 50 on all-purpose dual-carriageways).
If they had been clever, they could have extended civil partnerships to include any relationship between adults living together in the same
house. It need not include sex, so could include friends or relatives.
(There are already laws against incest if needed.)
On 04/01/2023 15:15, JNugent wrote:
On 04/01/2023 10:01 am, NY wrote:
Is it still the case that speed limits for HGVs are different in
Scotland and England? I remember around the time that the limits were
raised (eg for 50 to 60 on single-carriageway roads) in England,
seeing big signs at the border saying that Scotland's limit was still
50. One of the problems when two countries are *almost* the same is
knowing what laws are UK-wide and what laws are England- or Scotland-
or Wales-specific. (**)
Speed limits are the same: 60 / 70 unless a lower signed limit applies,
and automatically 30 on a road with street lights less than a prescribed distance apart.
Ah, are they now the same in Scotland and England. Maybe the date of introduction of the raised limits was different in the two countries,
hence the signs.
I remember having to be very careful when I hired a long-wheelbase van:
the hire company were very good about reminding car drivers that vans
are limited to 50 (instead of 60) on single-carriageway and 60 (instead
of 70) on dual-carriageway - the only place where it is legal to do 70
is on a motorway. I made sure I set the speed limiter (as I do with a
car in a 30 zone) to prevent me inadvertently creeping over.
It'll be different now because the M6 has effectively been extended northward (partly as M6, mainly as A74(M)), but on getting onto the A74 north of the old M6 termination, there used to be signs saying "_A_74 - Commercial vehicles follow correct speed limit" (because lorries were limited to 40 or 50 on all-purpose dual-carriageways).
"Follow correct speed limit" is a bit of a woolly phrase. Better if it
said "End of motorway speed limit. Follow correct dual/single limit".
But maybe that would be too wordy. I suppose they are banking on
"correct" making people think "what's the significance of that - ah,
it's not a motorway any longer so my limits will be lower in a lorry".
I've always wondered: why did the M6 not continue as motorway all the
way to Glasgow? Did the Scots not want to pay extra to construct the
road to any higher standards that may be needed for motorways, over and
above those for a dual carriageway? I presume the A74 still only has grade-separated junctions (no T junctions, no roundabouts).
On 02/01/2023 10:37, Roderick Stewart wrote:
The boy racer mentality seems to have infected a lot of the online
advice about computers too, as it mostly seem to be about squeezing
imperceptible speed increments out of grossly expensive and power
hungry monster installations, rather than choosing and configuring
sensible equipment that's actually useful for what you want to do.
Maybe this is an inevitable tendency in any branch of technology as
its complexity increases with time and the general understanding of it
decreases so there is less meaningful material to talk about.
Has anyone tried to watch the latest RI lectures on BBC4?
I used to watch them years ago and I don't remember them being quite as patronising; or the "volunteering" so obviously fake: why do the kids
all put their hands up? Are they Told To?
I find the "dame" who presents it annoying, too.
and - important - there's a different alcohol/blood limit. Much lower in Scotland.
I've always wondered: why did the M6 not continue as motorway all the
way to Glasgow? Did the Scots not want to pay extra to construct the
road to any higher standards that may be needed for motorways, over and
above those for a dual carriageway? I presume the A74 still only has
grade-separated junctions (no T junctions, no roundabouts).
Scotland has a separate road numbering system from England. Very few road have the same number north & south of the border. The A6 stopped at
Carlisle and the M6, for very many years, stopped just north of Carlisle.
The A74(M) is full motorway standard and stops at the Border..
My brain still does a brief millisecond of cognitive dissonance when I hear
a man [talk] about his husband or a woman talk about her wife.
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 14:23:31 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
My brain still does a brief millisecond of cognitive dissonance when I
hear
a man [talk] about his husband or a woman talk about her wife.
Same here, but don't let the Thought Police get wind of it, or they'll
be accusing you of an -ism of some sort just for thinking that.
Personally I consider it none of my business how couples choose to
live together, but I'm disappointed that officialdom has chosen to
endorse the dilution of the English language in this way. Radically
new concepts really demand new words, rather than the distortion of
the meanings of existing ones that have been understood for centuries.
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:te6drh5k4djeg3opu7hcen1e8vd6j7512d@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 14:23:31 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
My brain still does a brief millisecond of cognitive dissonance when I >>hear
a man [talk] about his husband or a woman talk about her wife.
Same here, but don't let the Thought Police get wind of it, or they'll
be accusing you of an -ism of some sort just for thinking that.
Personally I consider it none of my business how couples choose to
live together, but I'm disappointed that officialdom has chosen to
endorse the dilution of the English language in this way. Radically
new concepts really demand new words, rather than the distortion of
the meanings of existing ones that have been understood for centuries.
I suppose there is the word "partner" which neatly conceals the gender of
the spouse.
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message news:5a61aa1200charles@candehope.me.uk...
I've always wondered: why did the M6 not continue as motorway all the
way to Glasgow? Did the Scots not want to pay extra to construct the
road to any higher standards that may be needed for motorways, over
and above those for a dual carriageway? I presume the A74 still only
has grade-separated junctions (no T junctions, no roundabouts).
Scotland has a separate road numbering system from England. Very few
road have the same number north & south of the border. The A6 stopped
at Carlisle and the M6, for very many years, stopped just north of Carlisle. The A74(M) is full motorway standard and stops at the Border..
Ah, I've not studied the road-numbering system in detail. Indeed it was a long time before I realised that there was a logic, with A1 (and A1x and A1xx) going generally north, A4xx generally west and so on.
But I thought (evidently wrongly) that the A7xx and A8xx numbers were generally for roads that originated and ended in Scotland, and that long-distance roads such as the A1 and the A6 kept their "English"
numbers in Scotland.
I'd forgotten (or never known) that the M6 extension was motorway
standard (ie A74(M) rather than A74). Hence my question about whether it
was constructed to a lower non-motorway standard.
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:te6drh5k4djeg3opu7hcen1e8vd6j7512d@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 14:23:31 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
My brain still does a brief millisecond of cognitive dissonance when
I hear
a man [talk] about his husband or a woman talk about her wife.
Same here, but don't let the Thought Police get wind of it, or they'll
be accusing you of an -ism of some sort just for thinking that.
Personally I consider it none of my business how couples choose to
live together, but I'm disappointed that officialdom has chosen to
endorse the dilution of the English language in this way. Radically
new concepts really demand new words, rather than the distortion of
the meanings of existing ones that have been understood for centuries.
I suppose there is the word "partner" which neatly conceals the gender
of the spouse.
I read up about civil partnerships and discovered that there *is* a
legal difference: partners do not have full marital status (eg one is
assumed to inherit from the other, by default). So when civil
partnerships for same-sex couples were first introduced, they declared a permanent-relationship status but didn't give mutual inheritance and next-of-kin status. I can see why the later change to same-sex marriage
was such a big step up.
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message >news:te6drh5k4djeg3opu7hcen1e8vd6j7512d@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 14:23:31 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
My brain still does a brief millisecond of cognitive dissonance when I >>>hear
a man [talk] about his husband or a woman talk about her wife.
Same here, but don't let the Thought Police get wind of it, or they'll
be accusing you of an -ism of some sort just for thinking that.
Personally I consider it none of my business how couples choose to
live together, but I'm disappointed that officialdom has chosen to
endorse the dilution of the English language in this way. Radically
new concepts really demand new words, rather than the distortion of
the meanings of existing ones that have been understood for centuries.
I suppose there is the word "partner" which neatly conceals the gender of
the spouse.
I read up about civil partnerships and discovered that there *is* a legal >difference: partners do not have full marital status (eg one is assumed to >inherit from the other, by default). So when civil partnerships for same-sex >couples were first introduced, they declared a permanent-relationship status >but didn't give mutual inheritance and next-of-kin status. I can see why the >later change to same-sex marriage was such a big step up.
On 31/12/2022 13:32, Mark Carver wrote:
Your opinion of MM exactly mirrors mine
They keep calling her 'black' but she is 'mixed race'.
I suppose there is the word "partner" which neatly conceals the gender
of the spouse.
(good old Eric Laithwaite and his gyroscope!)
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 21:22:21 +0000
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
(good old Eric Laithwaite and his gyroscope!)
And him sending a flat metal plate into the wall using magnetic
levitation and linear propulsion.
Now he could lecture!
The original A74 was just a normal road, but as with the A1 in places, the motorway replacement used the old road number with (M) added.
On 04/01/2023 15:15, JNugent wrote:
On 04/01/2023 10:01 am, NY wrote:
Is it still the case that speed limits for HGVs are different in
Scotland and England? I remember around the time that the limits were
raised (eg for 50 to 60 on single-carriageway roads) in England,
seeing big signs at the border saying that Scotland's limit was still
50. One of the problems when two countries are *almost* the same is
knowing what laws are UK-wide and what laws are England- or Scotland-
or Wales-specific. (**)
Speed limits are the same: 60 / 70 unless a lower signed limit
applies, and automatically 30 on a road with street lights less than a
prescribed distance apart.
Ah, are they now the same in Scotland and England. Maybe the date of introduction of the raised limits was different in the two countries,
hence the signs.
I remember having to be very careful when I hired a long-wheelbase van:
the hire company were very good about reminding car drivers that vans
are limited to 50 (instead of 60) on single-carriageway and 60 (instead
of 70) on dual-carriageway - the only place where it is legal to do 70
is on a motorway. I made sure I set the speed limiter (as I do with a
car in a 30 zone) to prevent me inadvertently creeping over.
It'll be different now because the M6 has effectively been extended
northward (partly as M6, mainly as A74(M)), but on getting onto the
A74 north of the old M6 termination, there used to be signs saying
"_A_74 - Commercial vehicles follow correct speed limit" (because
lorries were limited to 40 or 50 on all-purpose dual-carriageways).
"Follow correct speed limit" is a bit of a woolly phrase. Better if it
said "End of motorway speed limit. Follow correct dual/single limit".
But maybe that would be too wordy. I suppose they are banking on
"correct" making people think "what's the significance of that - ah,
it's not a motorway any longer so my limits will be lower in a lorry".
I've always wondered: why did the M6 not continue as motorway all the
way to Glasgow? Did the Scots not want to pay extra to construct the
road to any higher standards that may be needed for motorways, over and
above those for a dual carriageway? I presume the A74 still only has grade-separated junctions (no T junctions, no roundabouts).
In article <-1ydnQs_w7a9fCj-nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 04/01/2023 15:15, JNugent wrote:
On 04/01/2023 10:01 am, NY wrote:
Is it still the case that speed limits for HGVs are different in
Scotland and England? I remember around the time that the limits were
raised (eg for 50 to 60 on single-carriageway roads) in England,
seeing big signs at the border saying that Scotland's limit was still
50. One of the problems when two countries are *almost* the same is
knowing what laws are UK-wide and what laws are England- or Scotland-
or Wales-specific. (**)
Speed limits are the same: 60 / 70 unless a lower signed limit applies,
and automatically 30 on a road with street lights less than a prescribed >>> distance apart.
Ah, are they now the same in Scotland and England. Maybe the date of
introduction of the raised limits was different in the two countries,
hence the signs.
I remember having to be very careful when I hired a long-wheelbase van:
the hire company were very good about reminding car drivers that vans
are limited to 50 (instead of 60) on single-carriageway and 60 (instead
of 70) on dual-carriageway - the only place where it is legal to do 70
is on a motorway. I made sure I set the speed limiter (as I do with a
car in a 30 zone) to prevent me inadvertently creeping over.
It'll be different now because the M6 has effectively been extended
northward (partly as M6, mainly as A74(M)), but on getting onto the A74
north of the old M6 termination, there used to be signs saying "_A_74 -
Commercial vehicles follow correct speed limit" (because lorries were
limited to 40 or 50 on all-purpose dual-carriageways).
"Follow correct speed limit" is a bit of a woolly phrase. Better if it
said "End of motorway speed limit. Follow correct dual/single limit".
But maybe that would be too wordy. I suppose they are banking on
"correct" making people think "what's the significance of that - ah,
it's not a motorway any longer so my limits will be lower in a lorry".
I've always wondered: why did the M6 not continue as motorway all the
way to Glasgow? Did the Scots not want to pay extra to construct the
road to any higher standards that may be needed for motorways, over and
above those for a dual carriageway? I presume the A74 still only has
grade-separated junctions (no T junctions, no roundabouts).
Scotland has a separate road numbering system from England. Very few road have the same number north & south of the border. The A6 stopped at
Carlisle
and the M6, for very many years, stopped just north of Carlisle.
The A74(M) is full motorway standard and stops at the Border..
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message news:5a61aa1200charles@candehope.me.uk...
I've always wondered: why did the M6 not continue as motorway all the
way to Glasgow? Did the Scots not want to pay extra to construct the
road to any higher standards that may be needed for motorways, over and
above those for a dual carriageway? I presume the A74 still only has
grade-separated junctions (no T junctions, no roundabouts).
Scotland has a separate road numbering system from England. Very few road
have the same number north & south of the border. The A6 stopped at
Carlisle and the M6, for very many years, stopped just north of Carlisle.
The A74(M) is full motorway standard and stops at the Border..
Ah, I've not studied the road-numbering system in detail. Indeed it was
a long time before I realised that there was a logic, with A1 (and A1x
and A1xx) going generally north, A4xx generally west and so on.
But I thought (evidently wrongly) that the A7xx and A8xx numbers were generally for roads that originated and ended in Scotland,
and that
long-distance roads such as the A1 and the A6 kept their "English"
numbers in Scotland.
I'd forgotten (or never known) that the M6 extension was motorway
standard (ie A74(M) rather than A74). Hence my question about whether it
was constructed to a lower non-motorway standard.
On 05/01/2023 10:04, NY wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:te6drh5k4djeg3opu7hcen1e8vd6j7512d@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 14:23:31 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
My brain still does a brief millisecond of cognitive dissonance when
I hear
a man [talk] about his husband or a woman talk about her wife.
Same here, but don't let the Thought Police get wind of it, or they'll
be accusing you of an -ism of some sort just for thinking that.
Personally I consider it none of my business how couples choose to
live together, but I'm disappointed that officialdom has chosen to
endorse the dilution of the English language in this way. Radically
new concepts really demand new words, rather than the distortion of
the meanings of existing ones that have been understood for centuries.
I suppose there is the word "partner" which neatly conceals the gender
of the spouse.
I read up about civil partnerships and discovered that there *is* a
legal difference: partners do not have full marital status (eg one is
assumed to inherit from the other, by default). So when civil
partnerships for same-sex couples were first introduced, they declared
a permanent-relationship status but didn't give mutual inheritance and
next-of-kin status. I can see why the later change to same-sex
marriage was such a big step up.
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 changed the intestacy rules so civil
partners inherited from a deceased civil partners under the same
intestacy rules as a surviving husband or wife.
On 05/01/2023 09:57 am, NY wrote:
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message news:5a61aa1200charles@candehope.me.uk...
I've always wondered: why did the M6 not continue as motorway all the
way to Glasgow? Did the Scots not want to pay extra to construct the
road to any higher standards that may be needed for motorways, over and >>> above those for a dual carriageway? I presume the A74 still only has
grade-separated junctions (no T junctions, no roundabouts).
Scotland has a separate road numbering system from England. Very few road >> have the same number north & south of the border. The A6 stopped at
Carlisle and the M6, for very many years, stopped just north of Carlisle. >> The A74(M) is full motorway standard and stops at the Border..
Ah, I've not studied the road-numbering system in detail. Indeed it was
a long time before I realised that there was a logic, with A1 (and A1x
and A1xx) going generally north, A4xx generally west and so on.
There certainly *is* a logic, but that isn't quite it.
England is divided into sectors by the low-number roads 1 - 6 radiating
from London, and then Scotland is further divided by the A7, A8 and A9.
Any road starting in the 1 sector (between A1 and the east coast) starts
with a 1. Roads south of the Thames east of London but east of the A3
start with a 2. Roads starting in the sector between A3 and A4 start
with a 3, and so on. The A6 sector starts where that road traditionally started, at Barnet (as a branch of the original line of A1).
But I thought (evidently wrongly) that the A7xx and A8xx numbers were generally for roads that originated and ended in Scotland,
That's correct. The 7 sector is between the west coast and the A7, etc.
and that
long-distance roads such as the A1 and the A6 kept their "English"
numbers in Scotland.
The A1 certainly does. So do A68 and A696. And also the A7 (it starts in England, originally in the centre of Carlisle).
I'd forgotten (or never known) that the M6 extension was motorway
standard (ie A74(M) rather than A74). Hence my question about whether it was constructed to a lower non-motorway standard.
Yes - the A74 was pretty much grade-separated, but had a few
sub-standard junctions along its length. Mind you, it's over forty years since I drove along the A74.
On 04/01/2023 08:27 pm, NY wrote:
On 04/01/2023 15:15, JNugent wrote:
On 04/01/2023 10:01 am, NY wrote:
Is it still the case that speed limits for HGVs are different in
Scotland and England?
Speed limits are the same: 60 / 70 unless a lower signed limit
applies, and automatically 30 on a road with street lights less than
a prescribed distance apart.
Ah, are they now the same in Scotland and England. Maybe the date of
introduction of the raised limits was different in the two countries,
hence the signs.
Those limits have been in force since 1965 (though there was an overall
50 limit during the 1973/74 oil crisis).
On 05/01/2023 18:09, JNugent wrote:
On 04/01/2023 08:27 pm, NY wrote:
On 04/01/2023 15:15, JNugent wrote:
On 04/01/2023 10:01 am, NY wrote:
Is it still the case that speed limits for HGVs are different in
Scotland and England?
Speed limits are the same: 60 / 70 unless a lower signed limit
applies, and automatically 30 on a road with street lights less than
a prescribed distance apart.
Ah, are they now the same in Scotland and England. Maybe the date of
introduction of the raised limits was different in the two countries,
hence the signs.
Those limits have been in force since 1965 (though there was an
overall 50 limit during the 1973/74 oil crisis).
I thought the HGV limits were raised in England about 10 years ago,
maybe by 10 mph beyond the limit that had previously applied on each
type of road.
And I believe that there was a period around that time
when England's and Scotland's HGV limits were out of step (England had
raised them, Scotland hadn't), but it sounds as if that is no longer the case.
That's what I was talking about. I know that the car limits went from "de-restricted" (ie unlimited) to finite values 60 for
single-carriageway, 70 for dual-carriageway and motorways, some time in
the 60s.
Probably when the majority of cars started to be capable of
exceeding 70, whereas previously many were limited by engine technology rather than law.
I'd forgotten the blanket 50 limit in the 70s. That must have been
tedious. I'd have been about 10 at the time, so you'd think I'd remember
my parents cursing about it. My dad used to drive from Leeds to London
and back each week on business (southwards at the crack of dawn on
Tuesday, northwards after work on Thursday), and a difference of 20 mph
for 200-odd miles would have made a significant difference to journey time.
When did motorways stop displaying an explicit "70" sign on the entry
slip road? I can remember that in the 70s. Now it is assumed as a
default value for any motorway, presumably with an explicit sign only if
the motorway that you are joining has a lower limit.
Pass. I remember the signs, certainly (though strictly, they weren't necessary since 70 was the default limit everywhere).
On 05/01/2023 10:04, NY wrote:
I suppose there is the word "partner" which neatly conceals the gender
of the spouse.
I think it was being used informally, before that, to conceal a lack of >knowledge as to whether there was a legal marriage in place, and where
it was known that there wasn't.
I don't think the amount of audience participation and the fake (or
not) volunteering was any more noticeable than when I used to watch
the lectures in the 1970s (good old Eric Laithwaite and his
gyroscope!) and when I went there a couple of years in about 1980 (a
friend's dad worked in the lighting department at the BBC and got complementary tickets).
What has changed in recent years is that the lectures are now edited
rather than being recorded "as live" with no breaks except in dire circumstances (*). That means they can take out the bits where
volunteers are walking to/from their seats, and while demonstration
equipment is brought in or out. That increases the amount of "lecture
time".
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 12:18:02 +0000, David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
On 05/01/2023 10:04, NY wrote:
I suppose there is the word "partner" which neatly conceals the gender
of the spouse.
I think it was being used informally, before that, to conceal a lack of
knowledge as to whether there was a legal marriage in place, and where
it was known that there wasn't.
I think it's still useful as a generic term, provided enough context
is given. I recall a conversation I once had with a colleague about
some electronic thing he was developing with the help of someone he
referred to as his partner. I assumed at first he meant a business
partner since he was effectively talking about a business venture, but
then realised it was ambiguous and didn't like to ask for details. (I
didn't know him well enough to know his preferences).
On 06/01/2023 01:08, JNugent wrote:
Pass. I remember the signs, certainly (though strictly, they weren't
necessary since 70 was the default limit everywhere).
I can't remember which way around it is between England & Wales and
Scotland, one uses the NSL sign and the other a 70 mph sign.
There are lots of funny rules like the use of repeater signs for speed limits. Logically you might think it was better to have plenty of
reminders but in one of the areas there are restrictions on their use.
It is a few years since I was in Northern Ireland but I liked the way
that just about every sign warning of speed cameras had a speed limit repeater sign below it.
I recommend the SABRE group for anyone wanting more information, it is
full of nerds who like to discuss all sorts of technicalities about the roads. :-) I gave it up years ago because it tended to run by a bit of
a clique.
Good idea. There's a good argument for putting a repeater sign on the
back and sides of speed cameras.
Another good one is the "Your speed is" digital sign as a gentle reminder.
On 06/01/2023 10:46 am, MB wrote:
It is a few years since I was in Northern Ireland but I liked the way
that just about every sign warning of speed cameras had a speed limit
repeater sign below it.
Good idea. There's a good argument for putting a repeater sign on the back and sides of speed cameras.
The annoying ones blink your speed at you (in amber without a thankyou) even if
you're within the limit ...
On 04/01/2023 21:22, NY wrote:
TV fun fact. Back in the 70s, it was indeed an 'as live' OB, sent back
to TV Centre, and the recording made there. With as you say minimal
editing (because editing 2 inch Quad material was an expensive and
labour intensive task)
You might remember from the same era the ATV children's drama
'Timeslip'. That was also shot electronically as an OB, and the signal
sent back by microwave to their studios in Borehamwood.
Andy Burns wrote:
The annoying ones blink your speed at you (in amber without a thankyou) even if
you're within the limit ...
THey are said to be more effective at reducing speeds than speed traps but they
do not bring in any revenue of course.
I remember years ago, a local councillor asked why in the 60+ miles between here
and Inverness, there is only location where it is nearly always possible to overtake safely and that is a very popular location for the Talivan to lurk.
NY wrote:
Another good one is the "Your speed is" digital sign as a gentle
reminder.
The annoying ones blink your speed at you (in amber without a thankyou)
even if you're within the limit ...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 02:22:42 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,604 |