On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:46:06 +0100, John Hall
wrote:

In article ,
Paul C writes:
By the last quarter of the 18th century there were estimated to be up
to 10,000 black people in London.

I'm always a little suspicious when people say "up to". Do you happen to
know what the best estimate of the number is?


See quoted source. Do you have an alternative source?

...... maybe the BBC will take this opporunity to introduce a
homosexual moblie phone saleman into this wonderful Dickens period
peice.
----------------
I'd like to see that. Could I suggest David Walliams in the lead role ;-)
(not)
Dave

On Oct 18, 10:29*pm, "Dave Cornwell"
wrote:
..... maybe the BBC will take this opporunity to introduce a
homosexual moblie phone saleman into this wonderful Dickens period
peice.
----------------
I'd like to see that. Could I suggest David Walliams in the lead role ;-)
(not)
Dave

Do you mean David Williams? Little Britain is crap and only exists
because of BBC ****s wanting the world to be thus-but it ain't .
Little Britain will be forgotten totally as time goes by. Why did that
****** change his name fro Williams to Walliams -what an arsehole.

Oh Mien Gott how the sheep- are lead to the slaughter

On Oct 18, 5:21*pm, wrote:
On Oct 18, 3:44*pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:





On Oct 18, 11:19*am, wrote:

On Oct 18, 8:58*am, Graham P Davis wrote:

wrote:
On Oct 17, 10:20*am, "Dave Cornwell"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Oct 16, 9:34 pm, (Gareth Slee) wrote:

wrote:
http://wattsupwiththat.com

...and that's a more reliable source than the BBC?

Yes Gareth, the same BBC that gave us is latest production of Oliver
Twist casting a black girl as Nancy. Ideology over reality every
time.
---------------------
It wouldn't occur to you that she might have been the best actress at the
audition would it? I saw it and thought she was a brilliant Nancy and
don't see what difference it makes. I don't recall the line in the novel
"Bill Sikes' girlfriend, the poor white girl, Nancy....."
Dave

No Dave it didn't occurr to me that she was the best actress for the
job, not in a million years. Taking your logic a step further, how
about Hugh Grant *playing the part of Nelson Mandella, *now that would
cause riots amongst the Guardinista's .

As for

*"I don't recall the line in the novel "Bill Sikes' girlfriend, the
poor white girl, Nancy"

Silly me *I forgot the novel *Winston Twista was set against the
backdrop of the Notting Hill Carnival..

You still seem to be confusing fictional characters with real ones. Just to
clarify the matter, Nelson Mandela is a real person who is black and Nancy
was a fictional character whose race was, as far as I know, not specified.
So why have you such a problem with Nancy not being played by a white
person?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. *E-mail: newsman not newsboy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Simply this: The bbc are doing this all the time at every opportunity
they try and portray the world to suit their cringing self-loathing
view. *In these more enlightened days there would rightly be an outcry
to have a white actor play an obviously black character, but when the
other way round -and with the BBc this is happening increasingly , the
BBC (lefty white middle classes) feel thats acceptable as a price to
pay for Britains Colonial Past. *Personally I find it patronising and
at worst dangerous.

Anyhow my thread was about the BBC failing in their birch leaf
thrashing angst to report *on any climate news that contradict the
doomsaying AGW bandwagon. This is no mistake, it is because the BBC
and I 'll through in UKMO here; are incresasingly being lead by
ideology.

Now does anyone on this group have an explantion other than that; or
do you feel the BBC's coverge on climate is fair an impartial.?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

* * Wrong newsgroup, Lawrence, as usual. * You could always join the
Fox News Appreciation Society if you want to be surrounded by like
minds.

Tudor Hughes- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Had a drink with Nicky last night, his dad's 90th. He reckons your
Trombone playing has improved exponentially.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know; I saw him tonite (sic) plucking his banjo, which he does
with some style. I don't think he's *ever* heard me play the trombone
because he does Trad and I do Big Band Swing and mainstream. He would
probably call my style rather poncy. His assessment is generous
though I can't imagine what it could be based on. Hearsay? The fact
that I often give him a lift home? You know, I think I'm going
bonkers.

Tudor Hughes (2nd trombone and chief section jazzer, the Derek Browne
Swing Band, blowing a 1971 Olds' Special with a Denis Wick 12 CS
mouthpiece and wearing varifocals).

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008, wrote
On Oct 18, 10:29*pm, "Dave Cornwell"
wrote:
..... maybe the BBC will take this opporunity to introduce a
homosexual moblie phone saleman into this wonderful Dickens period
peice.
----------------
I'd like to see that. Could I suggest David Walliams in the lead role ;-)
(not)
Dave

Do you mean David Williams? Little Britain is crap and only exists
because of BBC ****s wanting the world to be thus-but it ain't .
Little Britain will be forgotten totally as time goes by. Why did that
****** change his name fro Williams to Walliams -what an arsehole.


I happen to agree with you about Little Britain. It's a pity because
Walliams is actually rather a good straight actor. He was required to
change his name because the actors' union Equity demands you have an
unique stage name, and there was already a David Williams.

Oh Mien Gott how the sheep- are lead to the slaughter

You'd be more effective, Lawrence, with a polyglot spillangranmachucker.


--
Kate B

PS 'elvira' is spamtrapped - please reply to 'elviraspam' at cockaigne dot org dot uk if you
want to reply personally

In article ,
Paul C writes:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:46:06 +0100, John Hall
wrote:

In article ,
Paul C writes:
By the last quarter of the 18th century there were estimated to be up
to 10,000 black people in London.

I'm always a little suspicious when people say "up to". Do you happen to
know what the best estimate of the number is?


See quoted source. Do you have an alternative source?

I subsequently saw "5,000 to 10,000" quoted in your other post. I'm
happy with that. The phrase "up to" is often used as "weasel words", but
clearly not in this instance.
--
John Hall
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
sit next to me."
Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)

wrote:

Anyhow my thread was about the BBC failing in their birch leaf
thrashing angst to report *on any climate news that contradict the
doomsaying AGW bandwagon. This is no mistake, it is because the BBC
and I 'll through in UKMO here; are incresasingly being lead by
ideology.

They are being led by science, not ideology.


Now does anyone on this group have an explantion other than that; or
do you feel the BBC's coverge on climate is fair an impartial.?

I think the BBC's coverage is generally fair and impartial, sometimes I
wonder if it's not being too fair towards misguided minorities such as
during the MMR scare.

My main problem with the recent BBC2 "Climate War" series was that it
perpetuated the myth that during the seventies, after a period of slight
global cooling, scientists forecast a new ice age and then a decade later,
after the scorching seventies UK summers, forecast global warming.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy

On Oct 19, 10:49 am, Graham P Davis wrote:
wrote:
Anyhow my thread was about the BBC failing in their birch leaf
thrashing angst to report on any climate news that contradict the
doomsaying AGW bandwagon. This is no mistake, it is because the BBC
and I 'll through in UKMO here; are incresasingly being lead by
ideology.

They are being led by science, not ideology.



Now does anyone on this group have an explantion other than that; or
do you feel the BBC's coverge on climate is fair an impartial.?

I think the BBC's coverage is generally fair and impartial, sometimes I
wonder if it's not being too fair towards misguided minorities such as
during the MMR scare.

My main problem with the recent BBC2 "Climate War" series was that it
perpetuated the myth that during the seventies, after a period of slight
global cooling, scientists forecast a new ice age and then a decade later,
after the scorching seventies UK summers, forecast global warming.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy

Well Graham all I know is that during the seventies the Daily
Telegraph Sunday supplement ran a rather large feature on the coming
ice age, as did the tabloid Sunday Mirror (Pictorial in the
seventies). In fact the Pictorial devoted the front page and
subsequent pages to the headlines "New Ice Age on its way" or
something like that. So something was definitely catching the
imagination at that time. Of course as there was no internet then it
would have been even a lower profile story but it wasn't ;so something
was definitively afoot at the time. Didn't the ex editor of the New
Scientist Nigel Calder write a book called the Weather Machine (I
still have it)
which was a response to serious concern about the planet cooling and
possibly drifting towards much harsher times for agriculture?

On Oct 19, 11:51*am, wrote:
On Oct 19, 10:49 am, Graham P Davis wrote:





wrote:
Anyhow my thread was about the BBC failing in their birch leaf
thrashing angst to report *on any climate news that contradict the
doomsaying AGW bandwagon. This is no mistake, it is because the BBC
and I 'll through in UKMO here; are incresasingly being lead by
ideology.

They are being led by science, not ideology.

Now does anyone on this group have an explantion other than that; or
do you feel the BBC's coverge on climate is fair an impartial.?

I think the BBC's coverage is generally fair and impartial, sometimes I
wonder if it's not being too fair towards misguided minorities such as
during the MMR scare.

My main problem with the recent BBC2 "Climate War" series was that it
perpetuated the myth that during the seventies, after a period of slight
global cooling, scientists forecast a new ice age and then a decade later,
after the scorching seventies UK summers, forecast global warming.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. *E-mail: newsman not newsboy

Well Graham all I know is that during the seventies the Daily
Telegraph Sunday supplement ran a rather large feature on the coming
ice age, as did the tabloid Sunday Mirror (Pictorial in the
seventies). In fact the Pictorial devoted the front page and
subsequent pages to the headlines *"New Ice Age on its way" or
something like that. *So something was definitely catching the
Newspapers imagination at that time. Of course as there was no
internet then it
would have been even a lower profile story but it wasn't ;so something
was definitively afoot at the time. Didn't the ex editor of the New
Scientist Nigel Calder write a book called the Weather Machine (I
still have it)
which was a response to serious concern about the planet cooling and
possibly drifting towards much harsher times for agriculture?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Some newspapers have recently run stories about Global Warming having
stopped. That hasn't captured the scientists' or the public's
imagination and it isn't true, but they still run the stories.

It's odd that you are now choosing to back your argument with old
newspaper stories, when the thrust of what you have been saying in
this thread is "don't trust the media".

On Oct 19, 1:23 pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:51 am, wrote:

On Oct 19, 10:49 am, Graham P Davis wrote:

wrote:
Anyhow my thread was about the BBC failing in their birch leaf
thrashing angst to report on any climate news that contradict the
doomsaying AGW bandwagon. This is no mistake, it is because the BBC
and I 'll through in UKMO here; are incresasingly being lead by
ideology.

They are being led by science, not ideology.

Now does anyone on this group have an explantion other than that; or
do you feel the BBC's coverge on climate is fair an impartial.?

I think the BBC's coverage is generally fair and impartial, sometimes I
wonder if it's not being too fair towards misguided minorities such as
during the MMR scare.

My main problem with the recent BBC2 "Climate War" series was that it
perpetuated the myth that during the seventies, after a period of slight
global cooling, scientists forecast a new ice age and then a decade later,
after the scorching seventies UK summers, forecast global warming.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy

Well Graham all I know is that during the seventies the Daily
Telegraph Sunday supplement ran a rather large feature on the coming
ice age, as did the tabloid Sunday Mirror (Pictorial in the
seventies). In fact the Pictorial devoted the front page and
subsequent pages to the headlines "New Ice Age on its way" or
something like that. So something was definitely catching the

Newspapers imagination at that time. Of course as there was no
internet then it

would have been even a lower profile story but it wasn't ;so something
was definitively afoot at the time. Didn't the ex editor of the New
Scientist Nigel Calder write a book called the Weather Machine (I
still have it)
which was a response to serious concern about the planet cooling and
possibly drifting towards much harsher times for agriculture?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Some newspapers have recently run stories about Global Warming having
stopped. That hasn't captured the scientists' or the public's
imagination and it isn't true, but they still run the stories.

It's odd that you are now choosing to back your argument with old
newspaper stories, when the thrust of what you have been saying in
this thread is "don't trust the media".

No not really at all. The difference is this: the media in those times
hadn't the slightest interest in climate change so that story was one
of a real tangible anxiety this was underlined by the fact the left
never had the slightest interest in climate as they still
parasitically lived of the great beast that was the trade Union
movement. You also have to consider that it wasn't felt that humans
had any bearing on the climate whatsoever.

Now of course the TUC which was once a household term -everyone knew
what and who they were has now become virtually meaningless.

AS the great old dog died the flea like middle class left deserted and
found other hosts ie the media BBC in particular, local government in
fact in all levels of health, education, local government etc etc.
note though never in proper business only in parasitic state funded
enterprises.

Now you add into the mix undeniable warming that seems to be linked to
capitalistic western greed and 'Wahey the lads' a new rational ,
tangible religion has emerged that all Marxists middle classes can
feel comfortable with.

Now as I've said I'm not denying any warming , the original point of
my thread was why hasn't the BBC who pounce on any snippet of evidence
that reinforces AGW , never report facts/news to the contrary i.e the
regrowth of the Arctic ice?

Can you tell me why they haven't touched this story and why they
ignore the cooling and near record sea ice of Antarctica?

You see the BBC in particular believes we're are at the edge of the
abyss peering down into the terrible darkness, so you'd think any news
that delays impending disaster would be welcomed-yet its not. Odd
that.