Discussion:
Woman's Hour today
(too old to reply)
carolet
2016-03-29 08:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
is subtitled:

Coercive Control and Domestic Violence on The Archers


And this is what it says about it:

The storyline of Helen, Rob and his increasingly controlling behaviour
has gripped The Archers audience. The programme's editor and the actor
who plays Helen join Jane to discuss how an everyday story of country
folk became a dark tale of coercive control and domestic violence.

Sandra Horley, chief executive of the domestic violence charity Refuge,
and Guardian television critic Julia Raeside deliberate the effects of
The Archers' storyline on listeners.
--
CaroleT


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
l***@gmail.com
2016-03-29 09:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by carolet
Coercive Control and Domestic Violence on The Archers
[]
Post by carolet
Sandra Horley, chief executive of the domestic violence charity Refuge,
and Guardian television critic Julia Raeside deliberate the effects of
The Archers' storyline on listeners.
The for the reminder. Jenny Murray has been tweeting muchly on this TA
story.
LFS
2016-03-29 09:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@gmail.com
Post by carolet
Coercive Control and Domestic Violence on The Archers
[]
Post by carolet
Sandra Horley, chief executive of the domestic violence charity Refuge,
and Guardian television critic Julia Raeside deliberate the effects of
The Archers' storyline on listeners.
The for the reminder. Jenny Murray has been tweeting muchly on this TA
story.
Just listened. Wondering why I found it unsatisfactory, I realised that
the discussion was very one sided. I think I now better understand what
KRW has been up to, although I don't approve of his method.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
DavidK
2016-03-29 14:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by l***@gmail.com
Post by carolet
Coercive Control and Domestic Violence on The Archers
[]
Post by carolet
Sandra Horley, chief executive of the domestic violence charity Refuge,
and Guardian television critic Julia Raeside deliberate the effects of
The Archers' storyline on listeners.
The for the reminder. Jenny Murray has been tweeting muchly on this TA
story.
Just listened. Wondering why I found it unsatisfactory, I realised that
the discussion was very one sided. I think I now better understand what
KRW has been up to, although I don't approve of his method.
Can you expend on the last sentence please?

I've just listened and I agree about the radio programme, I didn't think
it added anything. This may be because I have read the threads here and
more particularly, the threads in the Ambridge Addicts group on Facebook.

I vacillate about Pat and they were excusing her on the radio programme.
On the one hand, I think that a long time ago things were so ambiguous
that we didn't know whether he was a baddy or not, there was a thread
here recently that showed how little evidence of his sinister behaviour
anyone in Ambridge is able to see, and people on Ambridge Addicts have
said that they knew people in Helen's situation without realising it. On
the other hand, Ursula remarked on how little help Pat and Tony were,
and Kirsty realised immediately how unwell Helen was.
LFS
2016-03-29 14:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidK
Post by LFS
Post by l***@gmail.com
Post by carolet
Coercive Control and Domestic Violence on The Archers
[]
Post by carolet
Sandra Horley, chief executive of the domestic violence charity Refuge,
and Guardian television critic Julia Raeside deliberate the effects of
The Archers' storyline on listeners.
The for the reminder. Jenny Murray has been tweeting muchly on this TA
story.
Just listened. Wondering why I found it unsatisfactory, I realised that
the discussion was very one sided. I think I now better understand what
KRW has been up to, although I don't approve of his method.
Can you expend on the last sentence please?
You may have noticed that KRW has been posting messages purporting to
present Rob's perspective: these have irritated some of us as they
seemed to be trivialising a serious matter.

The discussion in the programme did touch on Helen's personality but the
assumption was very much that Rob was two dimensionally evil. If there
was any mention of his relationship with Ursula, I must have missed it.
I thought this was unbalanced.

I am not defending the behaviour of either Rob or KRW: I am just
observing that even in soaps relationships are usually more complicated
than that reflected in the WH discussion.

[..]
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
DavidK
2016-03-29 15:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by DavidK
Post by LFS
Post by l***@gmail.com
Post by carolet
Coercive Control and Domestic Violence on The Archers
[]
Post by carolet
Sandra Horley, chief executive of the domestic violence charity Refuge,
and Guardian television critic Julia Raeside deliberate the effects of
The Archers' storyline on listeners.
The for the reminder. Jenny Murray has been tweeting muchly on this TA
story.
Just listened. Wondering why I found it unsatisfactory, I realised that
the discussion was very one sided. I think I now better understand what
KRW has been up to, although I don't approve of his method.
Can you expend on the last sentence please?
You may have noticed that KRW has been posting messages purporting to
present Rob's perspective: these have irritated some of us as they
seemed to be trivialising a serious matter.
The discussion in the programme did touch on Helen's personality but the
assumption was very much that Rob was two dimensionally evil. If there
was any mention of his relationship with Ursula, I must have missed it.
I thought this was unbalanced.
I am not defending the behaviour of either Rob or KRW: I am just
observing that even in soaps relationships are usually more complicated
than that reflected in the WH discussion.
[..]
Ah, I think I see what you mean. The radio programme didn't even
consider that Rob genuinely believes that he is acting for the best and
protecting Helen. I'm not surprised that it didn't though; it would have
started a storm of protest.
Serena Blanchflower
2016-03-29 15:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidK
Post by LFS
Post by l***@gmail.com
Post by carolet
Coercive Control and Domestic Violence on The Archers
[]
Post by carolet
Sandra Horley, chief executive of the domestic violence charity Refuge,
and Guardian television critic Julia Raeside deliberate the effects of
The Archers' storyline on listeners.
The for the reminder. Jenny Murray has been tweeting muchly on this TA
story.
Just listened. Wondering why I found it unsatisfactory, I realised that
the discussion was very one sided. I think I now better understand what
KRW has been up to, although I don't approve of his method.
Can you expend on the last sentence please?
I've just listened and I agree about the radio programme, I didn't think
it added anything. This may be because I have read the threads here and
more particularly, the threads in the Ambridge Addicts group on Facebook.
I vacillate about Pat and they were excusing her on the radio programme.
On the one hand, I think that a long time ago things were so ambiguous
that we didn't know whether he was a baddy or not, there was a thread
here recently that showed how little evidence of his sinister behaviour
anyone in Ambridge is able to see, and people on Ambridge Addicts have
said that they knew people in Helen's situation without realising it. On
the other hand, Ursula remarked on how little help Pat and Tony were,
and Kirsty realised immediately how unwell Helen was.
From what I've heard here, and discussing it with other friends, Pat's
reaction doesn't sound plausible to me. I've read a few articles, over
the years, about similar situations with family members saying that they
had been worried sick about the situation but either hadn't known what
they could do to help or had known (or, at any rate, believed) that
there was nothing that they *could* do to help, until the person
involved admitted that there was a problem. These people described the
agony of having to watch someone they loved go through it, while having
to just sit on their hands and wait.

This is much more what I'd expect Pat and Tony to be doing, with much
distress and hand wringing. Even if they hadn't noticed anything
themselves, it seems unbelievable to me that Kirsty wouldn't have spoken
to Pat about her worried - and that Pat wouldn't have both listened and
understood.
--
Best wishes, Serena
All great truths begin as blasphemies. (George Bernard Shaw)
Penny
2016-03-29 15:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:02:26 +0100, Serena Blanchflower
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by DavidK
Post by LFS
Post by l***@gmail.com
Post by carolet
Coercive Control and Domestic Violence on The Archers
[]
Post by carolet
Sandra Horley, chief executive of the domestic violence charity Refuge,
and Guardian television critic Julia Raeside deliberate the effects of
The Archers' storyline on listeners.
The for the reminder. Jenny Murray has been tweeting muchly on this TA
story.
Just listened. Wondering why I found it unsatisfactory, I realised that
the discussion was very one sided. I think I now better understand what
KRW has been up to, although I don't approve of his method.
Can you expend on the last sentence please?
I've just listened and I agree about the radio programme, I didn't think
it added anything. This may be because I have read the threads here and
more particularly, the threads in the Ambridge Addicts group on Facebook.
I vacillate about Pat and they were excusing her on the radio programme.
On the one hand, I think that a long time ago things were so ambiguous
that we didn't know whether he was a baddy or not, there was a thread
here recently that showed how little evidence of his sinister behaviour
anyone in Ambridge is able to see, and people on Ambridge Addicts have
said that they knew people in Helen's situation without realising it. On
the other hand, Ursula remarked on how little help Pat and Tony were,
and Kirsty realised immediately how unwell Helen was.
From what I've heard here, and discussing it with other friends, Pat's
reaction doesn't sound plausible to me. I've read a few articles, over
the years, about similar situations with family members saying that they
had been worried sick about the situation but either hadn't known what
they could do to help or had known (or, at any rate, believed) that
there was nothing that they *could* do to help, until the person
involved admitted that there was a problem. These people described the
agony of having to watch someone they loved go through it, while having
to just sit on their hands and wait.
This is much more what I'd expect Pat and Tony to be doing, with much
distress and hand wringing. Even if they hadn't noticed anything
themselves, it seems unbelievable to me that Kirsty wouldn't have spoken
to Pat about her worried - and that Pat wouldn't have both listened and
understood.
I think Pat did propose intervening recently (possibly over the home birth)
but Tony talked her out of it, reminding her that similar action in the
past had only served to alienate Helen further.
Pat went from mis-trusting Rob (this married man who was having a
clandestine affair with her daughter) to believing what Helen herself told
her of the relationship and doing her best to welcome Rob to the family
because 'he makes Helen happy'.

I find it all horribly plausible.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Btms
2016-03-29 18:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by DavidK
Post by LFS
Post by l***@gmail.com
Post by carolet
Coercive Control and Domestic Violence on The Archers
[]
Post by carolet
Sandra Horley, chief executive of the domestic violence charity Refuge,
and Guardian television critic Julia Raeside deliberate the effects of
The Archers' storyline on listeners.
The for the reminder. Jenny Murray has been tweeting muchly on this TA
story.
Just listened. Wondering why I found it unsatisfactory, I realised that
the discussion was very one sided. I think I now better understand what
KRW has been up to, although I don't approve of his method.
Can you expend on the last sentence please?
I've just listened and I agree about the radio programme, I didn't think
it added anything. This may be because I have read the threads here and
more particularly, the threads in the Ambridge Addicts group on Facebook.
I vacillate about Pat and they were excusing her on the radio programme.
On the one hand, I think that a long time ago things were so ambiguous
that we didn't know whether he was a baddy or not, there was a thread
here recently that showed how little evidence of his sinister behaviour
anyone in Ambridge is able to see, and people on Ambridge Addicts have
said that they knew people in Helen's situation without realising it. On
the other hand, Ursula remarked on how little help Pat and Tony were,
and Kirsty realised immediately how unwell Helen was.
From what I've heard here, and discussing it with other friends, Pat's
reaction doesn't sound plausible to me. I've read a few articles, over
the years, about similar situations with family members saying that they
had been worried sick about the situation but either hadn't known what
they could do to help or had known (or, at any rate, believed) that
there was nothing that they *could* do to help, until the person
involved admitted that there was a problem. These people described the
agony of having to watch someone they loved go through it, while having
to just sit on their hands and wait.
This is much more what I'd expect Pat and Tony to be doing, with much
distress and hand wringing. Even if they hadn't noticed anything
themselves, it seems unbelievable to me that Kirsty wouldn't have spoken
to Pat about her worried - and that Pat wouldn't have both listened and
understood.
I tend to agree but as I suggest upalong, it is plausible because of
Helen's previous
Attitude to the Ps.
--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
Btms
2016-03-29 18:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
DavidK <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:


[]
[]
Post by DavidK
I've just listened and I agree about the radio programme, I didn't think
it added anything. This may be because I have read the threads here and
more particularly, the threads in the Ambridge Addicts group on Facebook.
I vacillate about Pat and they were excusing her on the radio programme.
On the one hand, I think that a long time ago things were so ambiguous
that we didn't know whether he was a baddy or not, there was a thread
here recently that showed how little evidence of his sinister behaviour
anyone in Ambridge is able to see, and people on Ambridge Addicts have
said that they knew people in Helen's situation without realising it. On
the other hand, Ursula remarked on how little help Pat and Tony were,
and Kirsty realised immediately how unwell Helen was.
I think we see of others what they show us and they/we show different pics
to different people. So, what Helen shows to her parents is a different
Helen. Way back Helen was lying to her Mother about seeing Rob. And after
Helen's bumpy history, maybe Pat is invested in seeing the positives and
not questioning anything that challenging this picture.
--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
kosmo richard w
2016-03-29 19:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:31:02 +0100, LFS
Post by LFS
the discussion was very one sided. I think I now better understand what
To expect a balanced discussion on a programme which refers to an
actor when they mean actress seems unlikely.
--
kosmo richard w
Anne B
2016-03-29 19:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kosmo richard w
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:31:02 +0100, LFS
Post by LFS
the discussion was very one sided. I think I now better
understand
what
To expect a balanced discussion on a programme which refers to
an actor when they mean actress seems unlikely.
kosmo richard w
I am sure I have heard female actors in one of those discussions
on R4 insist that they are actors not actresses - seems
impossible to win.

Anne B
kosmo richard w
2016-03-29 20:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anne B
I am sure I have heard female actors in one of those discussions
on R4 insist that they are actors not actresses - seems
impossible to win.
Probably on Woman's Hour?
--
kosmo richard w
Btms
2016-03-29 21:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kosmo richard w
Post by Anne B
I am sure I have heard female actors in one of those discussions
on R4 insist that they are actors not actresses - seems
impossible to win.
Probably on Woman's Hour?
It must be over 15 years ago that I understood there was a pejorative
subtext to actress and it was becoming more polite to say actor for all
genders. It is mainstream language now innit!
--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
kosmo richard w
2016-03-29 21:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
genders. It is mainstream language now innit!
Not in my language. It simply correctly denotes a part played a
female person as opposed to a male person. Saying "an actor played
Helen" implies to me that the director has for good reason cast a
person of the male sex to play a person of the female sex - something
which happens these days or vice versa and needs the right
terminology to identify the decision made when the part is being
undertaken say by a person known as "Kim".
--
kosmo richard w
Btms
2016-03-30 06:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kosmo richard w
Post by Btms
genders. It is mainstream language now innit!
Not in my language. It simply correctly denotes a part played a
female person as opposed to a male person. Saying "an actor played
Helen" implies to me that the director has for good reason cast a
person of the male sex to play a person of the female sex - something
which happens these days or vice versa and needs the right
terminology to identify the decision made when the part is being
undertaken say by a person known as "Kim".
Close yer ears Syd......... But in this world (don't mention the P word) in
which boundaries of every conceivable kind are collapsing, the boundaries
of gender are no exception. As for your faith in Directors casting one
gender for another with good reason ....... I don't quite have that much
confidence in the fashion. Some do of course but I fear it is often just
fashion without anymore intention than this.
--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
Fenny
2016-03-29 22:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
It must be over 15 years ago that I understood there was a pejorative
subtext to actress and it was becoming more polite to say actor for all
genders. It is mainstream language now innit!
But not within the Oscars.

On last Saturday's Pointless Celebrities, one of the jackpot questions
was about anyone who had won an Oscar for Leading Actor or Supporting
Actor in the 90s. The contestants gave a female name and were told
she wasn't a vaild answer.

I'd already queried it with Ma, wondering if they were including
actors of the female variety.
--
Fenny
Anne B
2016-03-29 21:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:57:58 +0100, "Anne B"
Post by Anne B
I am sure I have heard female actors in one of those
discussions on R4 insist that they are actors not actresses -
seems impossible to win.
Probably on Woman's Hour?
kosmo richard w
Quite probably. The announcement of Woman's Hour normally impels
me fairly swiftly in the direction of the 'off' switch, but
occasionally, if I am in the middle of something, I do hear bits
of it.

Anne B
Rosalind Mitchell
2016-04-01 12:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kosmo richard w
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:31:02 +0100, LFS
Post by LFS
the discussion was very one sided. I think I now better understand
what
To expect a balanced discussion on a programme which refers to an
actor when they mean actress seems unlikely.
Do we still speak of Carol Ann Duffy as a poetess? A woman on the
stage/before the radio microphone does the same job as a man doing the same.
As I've said before.

Besides, "actress" has a long history as a euphemism for "whore".

Rosmb
Rosalind Mitchell
2016-04-01 12:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by l***@gmail.com
The for the reminder. Jenny Murray has been tweeting muchly on this TA
story.
That would be Jenni Murray. DINTAFPOU? :)

Rosmb
Fenny
2016-03-29 09:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:01:19 +0100, carolet
Post by carolet
Coercive Control and Domestic Violence on The Archers
The storyline of Helen, Rob and his increasingly controlling behaviour
has gripped The Archers audience. The programme's editor and the actor
who plays Helen join Jane to discuss how an everyday story of country
folk became a dark tale of coercive control and domestic violence.
Sandra Horley, chief executive of the domestic violence charity Refuge,
and Guardian television critic Julia Raeside deliberate the effects of
The Archers' storyline on listeners.
I listened, but CBA to email them. I know this kind of behaviour
exists. I know that TA has always tackled difficult subjects. But I
just don't want to listen to this storyline any more. I kept it up
until about January, but decided that my time was better spent doing
something else less painful, like pulling my nails out!

We've had several long storylines - Heather's illness & death, the
afternath of the flood,Jack's death and Hazel's heartlessness etc -
that haven't been a bed of roses, but this was the one that tipped the
balance for me. It's not the subject at all. It's just that I don't
want to listen to Rob any more. I know that this happens. I know
people like this exist. I just don't want to spend my Sundays hearing
about it any more.
--
Fenny
kosmo richard w
2016-03-29 19:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:01:19 +0100, carolet
Post by carolet
has gripped The Archers audience. The programme's editor and the actor
Actress please.
--
kosmo richard w
Fenny
2016-03-29 22:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:52:20 +1300, kosmo richard w
Post by Fenny
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:01:19 +0100, carolet
Post by carolet
has gripped The Archers audience. The programme's editor and the
actor
Actress please.
An actor is a person who acts. Regardless of gender.
--
Fenny
Btms
2016-03-30 06:56:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:52:20 +1300, kosmo richard w
Post by Fenny
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:01:19 +0100, carolet
Post by carolet
has gripped The Archers audience. The programme's editor and the
actor
Actress please.
An actor is a person who acts. Regardless of gender.
I suppose it could be argued that the word actress is some sort of modern
invention? Otoh hand it is valid to say all language, spilling of fixing
the form is also a relatively new one.
--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
Robin Stevens
2016-03-30 14:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Fenny
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:52:20 +1300, kosmo richard w
Post by kosmo richard w
Actress please.
An actor is a person who acts. Regardless of gender.
I suppose it could be argued that the word actress is some sort of modern
invention? Otoh hand it is valid to say all language, spilling of fixing
the form is also a relatively new one.
The OED says:

"Women did not appear on stage in public in England until after the
Restoration of 1660, following which the terms actor and actress were
both used to describe female performers. Later, actor was often
restricted to men, with actress as the usual term for women. Although
actress remains in general use, actor is increasingly preferred for
performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term."

though it has citations for the use of "actresse" as far back as 1608.
And doesn't mention Viola de Lessops.

Personally I'm happy for an actor of either sex to say something to a
bishop of either sex.

ObArchers: perhaps Janet Fisher could return as the next Bishop of
Felpersham?
Vicky
2016-03-30 18:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:08:57 +0000 (UTC), Robin Stevens
Post by Robin Stevens
Post by Btms
Post by Fenny
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:52:20 +1300, kosmo richard w
Post by kosmo richard w
Actress please.
An actor is a person who acts. Regardless of gender.
I suppose it could be argued that the word actress is some sort of modern
invention? Otoh hand it is valid to say all language, spilling of fixing
the form is also a relatively new one.
"Women did not appear on stage in public in England until after the
Restoration of 1660, following which the terms actor and actress were
both used to describe female performers. Later, actor was often
restricted to men, with actress as the usual term for women. Although
actress remains in general use, actor is increasingly preferred for
performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term."
though it has citations for the use of "actresse" as far back as 1608.
And doesn't mention Viola de Lessops.
Personally I'm happy for an actor of either sex to say something to a
bishop of either sex.
ObArchers: perhaps Janet Fisher could return as the next Bishop of
Felpersham?
Or perhaps we could have an abused husband, or gay partner story line.
--
Vicky
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2016-03-30 19:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:08:57 +0000 (UTC), Robin Stevens
Post by Robin Stevens
Post by Btms
Post by Fenny
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:52:20 +1300, kosmo richard w
Post by kosmo richard w
Actress please.
An actor is a person who acts. Regardless of gender.
I suppose it could be argued that the word actress is some sort of modern
invention? Otoh hand it is valid to say all language, spilling of fixing
the form is also a relatively new one.
[]
Post by Vicky
Post by Robin Stevens
both used to describe female performers. Later, actor was often
restricted to men, with actress as the usual term for women. Although
That was what I grew up with; like most (though not all) people, I find
what was the norm during my "formative years" something from which
deviations jar (though read on).
Post by Vicky
Post by Robin Stevens
actress remains in general use, actor is increasingly preferred for
performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term."
I am in many regards a feminist (or, I prefer, equalist or some term
like that), and I can see the point in that. However, when we are
talking about a female person playing a female role, to me actor jars
somewhat - if only because of its past use to mean a male. If "they" had
adopted a term without that history, I think I'd have found it easier to
accept. (Though I'm afraid I don't have any suggestions: I did think of
"thespian", but I fear that could sound a bit pretentious.)
[]
Post by Vicky
Post by Robin Stevens
Personally I'm happy for an actor of either sex to say something to a
bishop of either sex.
Oh, well played sir!
Post by Vicky
Post by Robin Stevens
ObArchers: perhaps Janet Fisher could return as the next Bishop of
Felpersham?
Yes, that would be nice (-:!
Post by Vicky
Or perhaps we could have an abused husband, or gay partner story line.
The breakfast TV item did at least mention that the other way round
exists, for which I was grateful, but mentioned that it was about 90:10
(I'm pretty sure the gay version wasn't even mentioned), and didn't
actually make any further reference to the minority case. Not by the
time I left, anyway - and they'd got onto the rather desperate case of
the steel plant, I think.

(OT: I'm puzzled how a management buy-out can possibly work: if it's
losing 1m a day, and employs 4000, then in order to continue, that means
the employees would have to contribute 250 a day to keep "their" plant
going, even if Tata give it to them for nothing; even if they worked for
nothing, I doubt many of them are on wages of 250 a day, even gross, so
that wouldn't work. But I often don't understand these money matters.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.
Penny
2016-03-30 20:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 20:51:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky
Or perhaps we could have an abused husband, or gay partner story line.
The breakfast TV item did at least mention that the other way round
exists, for which I was grateful, but mentioned that it was about 90:10
(I'm pretty sure the gay version wasn't even mentioned), and didn't
actually make any further reference to the minority case.
Doctors briefly touched on an abusive gay partner the other day and
Neighbours is currently running a coercive bullying boyfriend storyline.

My name is Penny and I am a soap addict.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
the Omrud
2016-03-31 09:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
Doctors briefly touched on an abusive gay partner the other day
That sort of behaviour can get a doctor exposed in the Daily Mail.
--
David
Fenny
2016-03-30 21:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 20:51:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I am in many regards a feminist (or, I prefer, equalist or some term
like that), and I can see the point in that. However, when we are
talking about a female person playing a female role, to me actor jars
somewhat - if only because of its past use to mean a male. If "they" had
adopted a term without that history, I think I'd have found it easier to
accept. (Though I'm afraid I don't have any suggestions: I did think of
"thespian", but I fear that could sound a bit pretentious.)
[]
The problem is that history has taken over and has turned a term for
someone who acts into something that distinguishes between the male
and female person who acts.

We don't call female doctors "doctoresses" or female drivers
"driveresses". We've managed to give up terms like "conductress" and
"airline stewardess". I'm pretty sure that nobody calls the person
who shows them to their seat in a theatre an usherette any more, or
the female who runs a shop or hotel a manageress.

An actor is a person who acts.
--
Fenny
Penny
2016-03-30 22:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:58:26 +0100, Fenny <***@onetel.com>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
The problem is that history has taken over and has turned a term for
someone who acts into something that distinguishes between the male
and female person who acts.
We don't call female doctors "doctoresses" or female drivers
"driveresses". We've managed to give up terms like "conductress" and
"airline stewardess". I'm pretty sure that nobody calls the person
who shows them to their seat in a theatre an usherette any more, or
the female who runs a shop or hotel a manageress.
An actor is a person who acts.
and there are no heroines, only heroes.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2016-03-30 23:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
The problem is that history has taken over and has turned a term for
someone who acts into something that distinguishes between the male
and female person who acts.
Yes, but that was established some time (centuries I think) before I was
born, and has only started to revert within my lifetime.
Post by Penny
Post by Fenny
We don't call female doctors "doctoresses" or female drivers
"driveresses".
No, but AFAIK, those words were never invented.
Post by Penny
Post by Fenny
We've managed to give up terms like "conductress" and
(Mainly because we don't have them of either gender any more!)
Post by Penny
Post by Fenny
"airline stewardess".
I guess "flight attendant" is the norm nowadays, and I think that's a
good term; however, if someone _was_ to be described as a steward
(airline or not), I'd expect a male. (Never were common on airlines;
more on ships, in fact I've never heard of a female one on a ship,
though I'm sure they exist.)
Post by Penny
Post by Fenny
I'm pretty sure that nobody calls the person
who shows them to their seat in a theatre an usherette any more, or
Do they still have them? (Shows how long it is since I went to the
theatre!) If someone used the term in a cinema, I'd not notice, though I
don't think it would occur to me to use it (and certainly not "usher";
I'd think of a court if I heard that).
Post by Penny
Post by Fenny
the female who runs a shop or hotel a manageress.
I think that term _does_ survive. Perhaps less so for a shop. I'd not
bat an eyelid if a female person was described as a manager, but I
wouldn't if she was described as a manageress, either.
Post by Penny
Post by Fenny
An actor is a person who acts.
Probably true. But _I_ still have to do a double-take if I hear/read it
applied to the female of the species - despite my generally egalitarian
views.
Post by Penny
and there are no heroines, only heroes.
I never liked that word anyway, because of the uncertainty of how to
pronounce it, and the confusion with heroin.

The even more quaint -ix ending does remain in some contexts however: I
think aviatrix would be thought very old-fashioned, aviator being fine
for both, and similarly for executor (wills) - but I don't think a
dominator would be understood (-:!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I hate people who quote Shakespeare at you but are proud that they can't add
up. Stupid People. - Carol Vorderman (Radio Times, 1-7 March 2003)
John Ashby
2016-03-31 04:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
We've managed to give up terms like "conductress" and
(Mainly because we don't have them of either gender any more!)
Oh yes we do. Think orchestral (where conductress was never in vogue)
rather than bus.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The even more quaint -ix ending does remain in some contexts however: I
think aviatrix would be thought very old-fashioned, aviator being fine
for both, and similarly for executor (wills) - but I don't think a
dominator would be understood (-:!
He or she had better be understood, or there will be consequences.

john
the Omrud
2016-03-31 09:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I never liked that word anyway, because of the uncertainty of how to
pronounce it, and the confusion with heroin.
I know of a detective story whose plot is entirely based on this confusion.
--
David
Rosalind Mitchell
2016-04-01 12:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by the Omrud
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I never liked that word anyway, because of the uncertainty of how to
pronounce it, and the confusion with heroin.
I know of a detective story whose plot is entirely based on this confusion.
I contemplated writing a story in which a man called Patrick (well, Padraig
to make it more interesting) was found dead in Glasgow and an arrest was
made of somebody at a Glasgow station overhead saying he was on his way to
Kilpatrick (on the Dumbarton line). I dismissed it as too silly to be
plausible but judging by some news stories one never knows.

Rosmb
Vicky
2016-03-31 10:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
The problem is that history has taken over and has turned a term for
someone who acts into something that distinguishes between the male
and female person who acts.
We don't call female doctors "doctoresses" or female drivers
"driveresses". We've managed to give up terms like "conductress" and
"airline stewardess". I'm pretty sure that nobody calls the person
who shows them to their seat in a theatre an usherette any more, or
the female who runs a shop or hotel a manageress.
An actor is a person who acts.
and there are no heroines, only heroes.
Maya Angelou suggested heroes and she-roes
--
Vicky
the Omrud
2016-03-31 11:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vicky
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
The problem is that history has taken over and has turned a term for
someone who acts into something that distinguishes between the male
and female person who acts.
We don't call female doctors "doctoresses" or female drivers
"driveresses". We've managed to give up terms like "conductress" and
"airline stewardess". I'm pretty sure that nobody calls the person
who shows them to their seat in a theatre an usherette any more, or
the female who runs a shop or hotel a manageress.
An actor is a person who acts.
and there are no heroines, only heroes.
Maya Angelou suggested heroes and she-roes
The latter sounds a bit fishy.
--
David
Vicky
2016-03-31 11:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by the Omrud
Post by Vicky
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
The problem is that history has taken over and has turned a term for
someone who acts into something that distinguishes between the male
and female person who acts.
We don't call female doctors "doctoresses" or female drivers
"driveresses". We've managed to give up terms like "conductress" and
"airline stewardess". I'm pretty sure that nobody calls the person
who shows them to their seat in a theatre an usherette any more, or
the female who runs a shop or hotel a manageress.
An actor is a person who acts.
and there are no heroines, only heroes.
Maya Angelou suggested heroes and she-roes
The latter sounds a bit fishy.
BTN
--
Vicky
Penny
2016-03-31 11:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 12:04:31 +0100, Vicky <***@gmail.com> scrawled
in the dust...
Post by the Omrud
Post by Vicky
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
The problem is that history has taken over and has turned a term for
someone who acts into something that distinguishes between the male
and female person who acts.
We don't call female doctors "doctoresses" or female drivers
"driveresses". We've managed to give up terms like "conductress" and
"airline stewardess". I'm pretty sure that nobody calls the person
who shows them to their seat in a theatre an usherette any more, or
the female who runs a shop or hotel a manageress.
An actor is a person who acts.
and there are no heroines, only heroes.
Maya Angelou suggested heroes and she-roes
The latter sounds a bit fishy.
BTN
Nah, he said 'sounds' not 'smells' ;)
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Vicky
2016-03-31 12:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
in the dust...
Post by the Omrud
Post by Vicky
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
The problem is that history has taken over and has turned a term for
someone who acts into something that distinguishes between the male
and female person who acts.
We don't call female doctors "doctoresses" or female drivers
"driveresses". We've managed to give up terms like "conductress" and
"airline stewardess". I'm pretty sure that nobody calls the person
who shows them to their seat in a theatre an usherette any more, or
the female who runs a shop or hotel a manageress.
An actor is a person who acts.
and there are no heroines, only heroes.
Maya Angelou suggested heroes and she-roes
The latter sounds a bit fishy.
BTN
Nah, he said 'sounds' not 'smells' ;)
*Gasp*! I almost replied to my own post before you posted, saying I
can't believe I posted it and now everyone will know I make very rude
jokes, and you've topped it!
--
Vicky
Penny
2016-03-31 13:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:01:35 +0100, Vicky <***@gmail.com> scrawled
in the dust...
Post by Vicky
Post by Penny
in the dust...
Post by the Omrud
Post by Vicky
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
The problem is that history has taken over and has turned a term for
someone who acts into something that distinguishes between the male
and female person who acts.
We don't call female doctors "doctoresses" or female drivers
"driveresses". We've managed to give up terms like "conductress" and
"airline stewardess". I'm pretty sure that nobody calls the person
who shows them to their seat in a theatre an usherette any more, or
the female who runs a shop or hotel a manageress.
An actor is a person who acts.
and there are no heroines, only heroes.
Maya Angelou suggested heroes and she-roes
The latter sounds a bit fishy.
BTN
Nah, he said 'sounds' not 'smells' ;)
*Gasp*! I almost replied to my own post before you posted, saying I
can't believe I posted it and now everyone will know I make very rude
jokes, and you've topped it!
So, nominate me ...
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Jenny M Benson
2016-03-31 13:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by the Omrud
Post by Vicky
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
The problem is that history has taken over and has turned a term for
someone who acts into something that distinguishes between the male
and female person who acts.
We don't call female doctors "doctoresses" or female drivers
"driveresses". We've managed to give up terms like "conductress" and
"airline stewardess". I'm pretty sure that nobody calls the person
who shows them to their seat in a theatre an usherette any more, or
the female who runs a shop or hotel a manageress.
An actor is a person who acts.
and there are no heroines, only heroes.
Maya Angelou suggested heroes and she-roes
The latter sounds a bit fishy.
BTN
Not this time.
--
Jenny M Benson
BrritSki
2016-03-31 11:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by the Omrud
Post by Vicky
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
The problem is that history has taken over and has turned a term for
someone who acts into something that distinguishes between the male
and female person who acts.
We don't call female doctors "doctoresses" or female drivers
"driveresses". We've managed to give up terms like "conductress" and
"airline stewardess". I'm pretty sure that nobody calls the person
who shows them to their seat in a theatre an usherette any more, or
the female who runs a shop or hotel a manageress.
An actor is a person who acts.
and there are no heroines, only heroes.
Maya Angelou suggested heroes and she-roes
The latter sounds a bit fishy.
Don't egg him on, I'm sturgeon you.
Rosalind Mitchell
2016-04-01 12:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
and there are no heroines, only heroes.
Especially given that the original Hero was a woman.

Rosmb
Btms
2016-04-01 14:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rosalind Mitchell
Post by Penny
and there are no heroines, only heroes.
Especially given that the original Hero was a woman.
Rosmb
Oh well bowled sir! Erm... Ma'm... Miss...... Um; just off to the
recovery ward for a rest.
--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
Marjorie
2016-04-02 08:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Fenny
The problem is that history has taken over and has turned a term for
someone who acts into something that distinguishes between the male
and female person who acts.
We don't call female doctors "doctoresses" or female drivers
"driveresses". We've managed to give up terms like "conductress" and
"airline stewardess". I'm pretty sure that nobody calls the person
who shows them to their seat in a theatre an usherette any more, or
the female who runs a shop or hotel a manageress.
An actor is a person who acts.
and there are no heroines, only heroes.
Helen is descibed on the BBC website as a "tragic heroine".
--
Marjorie

To reply, replace dontusethisaddress with marje
kosmo richard w
2016-03-31 03:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:58:26 +0100, Fenny
Post by Fenny
"airline stewardess". I'm pretty sure that nobody calls the person
We certainly had stewardesses on our flights as well as stewards.
--
kosmo richard w
Fenny
2016-03-31 20:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:46:44 +1300, kosmo richard w
Post by kosmo richard w
We certainly had stewardesses on our flights as well as stewards.
The official term for both of these is "flight attendant".
--
Fenny
Marjorie
2016-04-02 08:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 20:51:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I am in many regards a feminist (or, I prefer, equalist or some term
like that), and I can see the point in that. However, when we are
talking about a female person playing a female role, to me actor jars
somewhat - if only because of its past use to mean a male. If "they" had
adopted a term without that history, I think I'd have found it easier to
accept. (Though I'm afraid I don't have any suggestions: I did think of
"thespian", but I fear that could sound a bit pretentious.)
[]
The problem is that history has taken over and has turned a term for
someone who acts into something that distinguishes between the male
and female person who acts.
We don't call female doctors "doctoresses" or female drivers
"driveresses". We've managed to give up terms like "conductress" and
"airline stewardess". I'm pretty sure that nobody calls the person
who shows them to their seat in a theatre an usherette any more, or
the female who runs a shop or hotel a manageress.
An actor is a person who acts.
We still have waitresses and waiters, and lollipop men or ladies
("Ladypop" was my grandson's rather cute version of this). The job
advert may call them something more bland and neutral, but in everyday
speech, people often like to make the distinction between a male and a
female doing a particular job. It just adds a little more information
than a gender-neutral term would.

Languages that use gender inflections often have different words for
(say) a male or female doctor or dancer, without any derogatory
implications.
--
Marjorie

To reply, replace dontusethisaddress with marje
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2016-04-02 10:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@brightview.co.uk>, Marjorie
<***@springequinox.co.uk> writes:
[]
Post by Marjorie
We still have waitresses and waiters, and lollipop men or ladies
("Ladypop" was my grandson's rather cute version of this). The job
advert may call them something more bland and neutral, but in everyday
speech, people often like to make the distinction between a male and a
female doing a particular job. It just adds a little more information
than a gender-neutral term would.
Languages that use gender inflections often have different words for
(say) a male or female doctor or dancer, without any derogatory
implications.
The _socieities_ that use such languages - however progressive they are
with actual legislation - I think still have quite firm views on gender
roles; I think it being part of your language makes it difficult not to.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
money."
Penny
2016-04-02 10:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 11:33:22 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The _socieities_ that use such languages - however progressive they are
with actual legislation - I think still have quite firm views on gender
roles; I think it being part of your language makes it difficult not to.
Hence the riddle -
A man and his son are in a terrible accident and are rushed to the hospital
in critical care. The surgeon looks at the boy and exclaims "I can't
operate on this boy, he's my son!" How could this be?
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2016-04-02 10:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Penny
On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 11:33:22 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The _socieities_ that use such languages - however progressive they are
with actual legislation - I think still have quite firm views on gender
roles; I think it being part of your language makes it difficult not to.
Hence the riddle -
A man and his son are in a terrible accident and are rushed to the hospital
in critical care. The surgeon looks at the boy and exclaims "I can't
operate on this boy, he's my son!" How could this be?
These days, there can be _two_ answers to that one!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... a series about a grumpy old man who lives in a phone box is unlikely to
have been commissioned these days. 798 episodes later ...
Marjorie
2016-04-03 12:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Marjorie
We still have waitresses and waiters, and lollipop men or ladies
("Ladypop" was my grandson's rather cute version of this). The job
advert may call them something more bland and neutral, but in everyday
speech, people often like to make the distinction between a male and a
female doing a particular job. It just adds a little more information
than a gender-neutral term would.
Languages that use gender inflections often have different words for
(say) a male or female doctor or dancer, without any derogatory
implications.
The _socieities_ that use such languages - however progressive they are
with actual legislation - I think still have quite firm views on gender
roles; I think it being part of your language makes it difficult not to.
Germany? France? And I think even Swedish has differentiated words for
some occupations, while their society is generally more gender-fluid
than ours. Precision and prejudice are quite distinct things.
--
Marjorie

To reply, replace dontusethisaddress with marje
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2016-04-03 12:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[]
Post by Marjorie
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Marjorie
Languages that use gender inflections often have different words for
(say) a male or female doctor or dancer, without any derogatory
implications.
The _socieities_ that use such languages - however progressive they are
with actual legislation - I think still have quite firm views on gender
roles; I think it being part of your language makes it difficult not to.
Germany? France? And I think even Swedish has differentiated words for
some occupations, while their society is generally more gender-fluid
than ours. Precision and prejudice are quite distinct things.
I think they're at least as progressive as we are with _laws_ - if only
by being so pro-EC; however, I think _attitudes_ may be somewhat behind,
especially (as here) with (some) older folk. (I know not Swedish
society.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.
Btms
2016-04-03 14:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marjorie
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Marjorie
We still have waitresses and waiters, and lollipop men or ladies
("Ladypop" was my grandson's rather cute version of this). The job
advert may call them something more bland and neutral, but in everyday
speech, people often like to make the distinction between a male and a
female doing a particular job. It just adds a little more information
than a gender-neutral term would.
Languages that use gender inflections often have different words for
(say) a male or female doctor or dancer, without any derogatory
implications.
The _socieities_ that use such languages - however progressive they are
with actual legislation - I think still have quite firm views on gender
roles; I think it being part of your language makes it difficult not to.
Germany? France? And I think even Swedish has differentiated words for
some occupations, while their society is generally more gender-fluid
than ours. Precision and prejudice are quite distinct things.
A good point but I think too often society fails to recognise this fact.
Political correctness gone mad.......etc
--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
Sam Plusnet
2016-04-02 20:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
some fairly drastic snippage which may damage attributions
Post by Marjorie
Post by Fenny
An actor is a person who acts.
We still have waitresses and waiters, and lollipop men or ladies
("Ladypop" was my grandson's rather cute version of this). The job
advert may call them something more bland and neutral, but in everyday
speech, people often like to make the distinction between a male and a
female doing a particular job. It just adds a little more information
than a gender-neutral term would.
Languages that use gender inflections often have different words for
(say) a male or female doctor or dancer, without any derogatory
implications.
Where a person's gender is not relevant to a job, it seems quite
sensible to have a gender neutral title for that role.

I think that acting is one occupation which doesn't fit into this
category since the gender of the actor/actress _is_ significant.

It's certainly possible to cast a man as Ophelia or a woman as Hamlet,
but that (in my view) underscores the relevance of gender in acting
rather than detracting from it.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2016-04-02 20:52:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@news.plus.net>, Sam Plusnet
<***@home.com> writes:
[]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Where a person's gender is not relevant to a job, it seems quite
sensible to have a gender neutral title for that role.
Agreed. Flight attendant and firefighter are good new terms of the sort.

However, appropriating the term which was (and I mean in recent memory,
not historically) one of two terms, doesn't work for some people
(including me). The above two are _new_ terms, and don't bring any
baggage.
Post by Sam Plusnet
I think that acting is one occupation which doesn't fit into this
category since the gender of the actor/actress _is_ significant.
It's certainly possible to cast a man as Ophelia or a woman as Hamlet,
but that (in my view) underscores the relevance of gender in acting
rather than detracting from it.
Indeed.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand
Btms
2016-04-02 21:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Where a person's gender is not relevant to a job, it seems quite
sensible to have a gender neutral title for that role.
Agreed. Flight attendant and firefighter are good new terms of the sort.
However, appropriating the term which was (and I mean in recent memory,
not historically) one of two terms, doesn't work for some people
(including me). The above two are _new_ terms, and don't bring any
baggage.
Post by Sam Plusnet
I think that acting is one occupation which doesn't fit into this
category since the gender of the actor/actress _is_ significant.
It's certainly possible to cast a man as Ophelia or a woman as Hamlet,
but that (in my view) underscores the relevance of gender in acting
rather than detracting from it.
Indeed.
But it wasn't significant for Shakespeare. 'Cept I imagine such as the
balcony scene in romeo and juliet has an added dimension without gender.
--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
Serena Blanchflower
2016-04-03 09:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
some fairly drastic snippage which may damage attributions
Post by Marjorie
Post by Fenny
An actor is a person who acts.
We still have waitresses and waiters, and lollipop men or ladies
("Ladypop" was my grandson's rather cute version of this). The job
advert may call them something more bland and neutral, but in everyday
speech, people often like to make the distinction between a male and a
female doing a particular job. It just adds a little more information
than a gender-neutral term would.
Languages that use gender inflections often have different words for
(say) a male or female doctor or dancer, without any derogatory
implications.
Where a person's gender is not relevant to a job, it seems quite
sensible to have a gender neutral title for that role.
I think that acting is one occupation which doesn't fit into this
category since the gender of the actor/actress _is_ significant.
It's certainly possible to cast a man as Ophelia or a woman as Hamlet,
but that (in my view) underscores the relevance of gender in acting
rather than detracting from it.
The character's sex is certainly one important factor in choosing the
right actor but it's far from the only one. For example, I suspect a
young man would be more likely to be chosen to play Juliet than a middle
aged or elderly woman would be. In fact, in Shakespeare's day, it would
have been de rigeur to have a young boy in the part.

No one suggests that we should have a separate term for young
actors/actresses compared to older thesps.
--
Best wishes, Serena
When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further
introduction. (Mark Twain)
John Ashby
2016-04-03 13:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by Sam Plusnet
some fairly drastic snippage which may damage attributions
Post by Marjorie
Post by Fenny
An actor is a person who acts.
We still have waitresses and waiters, and lollipop men or ladies
("Ladypop" was my grandson's rather cute version of this). The job
advert may call them something more bland and neutral, but in everyday
speech, people often like to make the distinction between a male and a
female doing a particular job. It just adds a little more information
than a gender-neutral term would.
Languages that use gender inflections often have different words for
(say) a male or female doctor or dancer, without any derogatory
implications.
Where a person's gender is not relevant to a job, it seems quite
sensible to have a gender neutral title for that role.
I think that acting is one occupation which doesn't fit into this
category since the gender of the actor/actress _is_ significant.
It's certainly possible to cast a man as Ophelia or a woman as Hamlet,
but that (in my view) underscores the relevance of gender in acting
rather than detracting from it.
The character's sex is certainly one important factor in choosing the
right actor but it's far from the only one. For example, I suspect a
young man would be more likely to be chosen to play Juliet than a middle
aged or elderly woman would be. In fact, in Shakespeare's day, it would
have been de rigeur to have a young boy in the part.
No one suggests that we should have a separate term for young
actors/actresses compared to older thesps.
Juveniles and ingenues?

john
kosmo richard w
2016-03-31 03:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 20:51:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(OT: I'm puzzled how a management buy-out can possibly work: if it's
losing 1m a day, and employs 4000, then in order to continue, that means
the employees would have to contribute 250 a day to keep "their" plant
going, even if Tata give it to them for nothing; even if they
worked for
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
nothing, I doubt many of them are on wages of 250 a day, even
gross, so
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
that wouldn't work. But I often don't understand these money
matters.)

How much of the daily losses are interest payments that would be
wiped out through an insolvency process?

Financial engineering innit?
--
kosmo richard w
Chris J Dixon
2016-03-31 06:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
- and they'd got onto the rather desperate case of
the steel plant, I think.
(OT: I'm puzzled how a management buy-out can possibly work: if it's
losing 1m a day, and employs 4000, then in order to continue, that means
the employees would have to contribute 250 a day to keep "their" plant
going, even if Tata give it to them for nothing; even if they worked for
nothing, I doubt many of them are on wages of 250 a day, even gross, so
that wouldn't work. But I often don't understand these money matters.)
All very sad. Don't forget the enormous pension hole. I can
understand the strategic importance of maintaining domestic steel
production, but at what immense cost?

I read the other day that the pension support outfit (forget its
actual name) has taken a 33% stake in BHS because of a similar
deficit.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
Btms
2016-03-31 08:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
- and they'd got onto the rather desperate case of
the steel plant, I think.
(OT: I'm puzzled how a management buy-out can possibly work: if it's
losing 1m a day, and employs 4000, then in order to continue, that means
the employees would have to contribute 250 a day to keep "their" plant
going, even if Tata give it to them for nothing; even if they worked for
nothing, I doubt many of them are on wages of 250 a day, even gross, so
that wouldn't work. But I often don't understand these money matters.)
All very sad. Don't forget the enormous pension hole. I can
understand the strategic importance of maintaining domestic steel
production, but at what immense cost?
I read the other day that the pension support outfit (forget its
actual name) has taken a 33% stake in BHS because of a similar
deficit.
Chris
Some years ago I drove passed the Port Talbot steel works. The size of it
was mind blowing. On TV they refer to the size and wave at the background.
This doesn't come near conveying the size. It sits on a flat plain and
seems to occupy miles and miles of land. The numbers who work there must
be reflected in this. Closure will be devastating but the steel industry
has a long history of feast and famine.
--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
Fenny
2016-03-31 20:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Some years ago I drove passed the Port Talbot steel works. The size of it
was mind blowing. On TV they refer to the size and wave at the background.
This doesn't come near conveying the size. It sits on a flat plain and
seems to occupy miles and miles of land. The numbers who work there must
be reflected in this. Closure will be devastating but the steel industry
has a long history of feast and famine.
The Tata steelworks in Jamshedpur are probably bigger.
--
Fenny
Btms
2016-03-31 21:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
Post by Btms
Some years ago I drove passed the Port Talbot steel works. The size of it
was mind blowing. On TV they refer to the size and wave at the background.
This doesn't come near conveying the size. It sits on a flat plain and
seems to occupy miles and miles of land. The numbers who work there must
be reflected in this. Closure will be devastating but the steel industry
has a long history of feast and famine.
The Tata steelworks in Jamshedpur are probably bigger.
And your point is? Is this works also closing? Don't understand.....but
maybe its me.
--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
Mudge
2016-03-31 21:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Fenny
Post by Btms
Some years ago I drove passed the Port Talbot steel works. The size of it
was mind blowing. On TV they refer to the size and wave at the background.
This doesn't come near conveying the size. It sits on a flat plain and
seems to occupy miles and miles of land. The numbers who work there must
be reflected in this. Closure will be devastating but the steel industry
has a long history of feast and famine.
The Tata steelworks in Jamshedpur are probably bigger.
And your point is? Is this works also closing? Don't understand.....but
maybe its me.
I think perhaps Fenny was contemplating someone with very large Tatas
--
The Canadian Curmudgeon (in Calgary)
Remove noxious CO2 - plant many trees
Fenny
2016-03-31 21:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
Post by Fenny
Post by Btms
Some years ago I drove passed the Port Talbot steel works. The size of it
was mind blowing. On TV they refer to the size and wave at the background.
This doesn't come near conveying the size. It sits on a flat plain and
seems to occupy miles and miles of land. The numbers who work there must
be reflected in this. Closure will be devastating but the steel industry
has a long history of feast and famine.
The Tata steelworks in Jamshedpur are probably bigger.
And your point is? Is this works also closing? Don't understand.....but
maybe its me.
Tata is a huge company. They make a lot of steel in India in a
massive plant, probably much cheaper than they can make it in Port
Talbot.

While I have a lot of links to the British steel industry and would
like to see it continue, the privatisation of UK industries and
utilities is not likely to be reversed any time soon.

I think that the amount the government spent on bailing out the banks
was obscene. I also think that the government should do something to
help save the steel industry. But I also think that steel making
plants need to not run at a loss. Until that can happen, I think that
any investment the government might make in buying up steel works
won't save the steel industry in the long term.

Port Talbot may be huge, but it's losing money and it's tiny in
comparison with other steel works in other countries that don't make a
loss.
--
Fenny
Sam Plusnet
2016-03-31 21:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
Port Talbot may be huge, but it's losing money and it's tiny in
comparison with other steel works in other countries that don't make a
loss.
Furthermore, it's in a rock solid Labour constituency.
Btms
2016-04-01 08:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Fenny
Port Talbot may be huge, but it's losing money and it's tiny in
comparison with other steel works in other countries that don't make a
loss.
Furthermore, it's in a rock solid Labour constituency.
Furtheremore what? How does this affect their profit and loss? In their
case only loss :-(
--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
Sam Plusnet
2016-04-01 18:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <554650910.481191181.631794.poppy-
Post by Btms
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Fenny
Port Talbot may be huge, but it's losing money and it's tiny in
comparison with other steel works in other countries that don't make a
loss.
Furthermore, it's in a rock solid Labour constituency.
Furtheremore what? How does this affect their profit and loss? In their
case only loss :-(
It's another reason why the government needn't try too hard to rescue
it.

Political profit and loss, not the economic version.
Btms
2016-04-01 19:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
In article <554650910.481191181.631794.poppy-
Post by Btms
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Fenny
Port Talbot may be huge, but it's losing money and it's tiny in
comparison with other steel works in other countries that don't make a
loss.
Furthermore, it's in a rock solid Labour constituency.
Furtheremore what? How does this affect their profit and loss? In their
case only loss :-(
It's another reason why the government needn't try too hard to rescue
it.
Political profit and loss, not the economic version.
I see. I would expect HMG to be concerned about relying on China for
supporting the defence needs for steel.
--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
kosmo richard w
2016-04-01 19:55:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
I see. I would expect HMG to be concerned about relying on China for
supporting the defence needs for steel.
Our defence industry buys steel from abroad as it is cheaper.
--
kosmo richard w
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2016-04-01 20:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kosmo richard w
Post by Btms
I see. I would expect HMG to be concerned about relying on China
for
Post by Btms
supporting the defence needs for steel.
Our defence industry buys steel from abroad as it is cheaper.
But didn't _have_ to; it thought it had the choice. (And was saving
taxpayers' money, of course.)

As the Omrud said about semiconductors, we'd be relying on "abroad" for
one more thing. We do for food anyway: we just about managed to get
self-sufficient during the war, but it was an effort; even allowing for
improved agricultural efficiency, it'd be hard.

Living in Kent, and seeing (suffering from, often!) Operation Stack, I'm
very aware of how much we - well, how many lorries we send out, but I
imagine we bring them in full too. It's quite startling how quickly it
builds up - in just a few hours.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Advertising is legalized lying. - H.G. Wells
Btms
2016-04-01 20:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kosmo richard w
Post by Btms
I see. I would expect HMG to be concerned about relying on China
for
Post by Btms
supporting the defence needs for steel.
Our defence industry buys steel from abroad as it is cheaper.
Yebutt relying on it being available is another matter - this is all part
of the Yes Minister double standards.
--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
Sam Plusnet
2016-04-01 20:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kosmo richard w
Post by Btms
I see. I would expect HMG to be concerned about relying on China
for
Post by Btms
supporting the defence needs for steel.
Our defence industry buys steel from abroad as it is cheaper.
The vast range of materials, components and sub (sub, sub etc.)
components needed for defence equipment today cannot be supplied from
the UK, so there seems little reason to make a special case for steel.

Thus buying steel at the cheapest price makes sense.
Mike Bayliss
2016-04-04 09:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
I see. I would expect HMG to be concerned about relying on China for
supporting the defence needs for steel.
Long term needs can be met elsewhere.

The next war will not feature 5 years of factories/shipyards building
new weapons - it will be over too quickly for the production line to
make any difference.

Mike
--
BA9020C 26/11/2003 - The triumph of accounting over engineering.
Btms
2016-04-04 09:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Bayliss
Post by Btms
I see. I would expect HMG to be concerned about relying on China for
supporting the defence needs for steel.
Long term needs can be met elsewhere.
The next war will not feature 5 years of factories/shipyards building
new weapons - it will be over too quickly for the production line to
make any difference.
Mike
If you mean a world war but we seem keen to interfere with awful regimes
not realising that the culture ensure they are replaced by another awful
regime. Anyway, I have heard since there is no strategic issues regarding
UK steel so HMG need only worry about marginal seats being lost as a result
f poor PR management. A rescue plan that will gradually fail slice by
slice and avoid the headlines might be an option.
--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2016-04-01 19:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
In article <554650910.481191181.631794.poppy-
[]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Btms
Post by Sam Plusnet
Furthermore, it's in a rock solid Labour constituency.
Furtheremore what? How does this affect their profit and loss? In their
case only loss :-(
It's another reason why the government needn't try too hard to rescue
it.
Political profit and loss, not the economic version.
Although if they somehow managed it, think what a coup that would be!

But, I agree, I doubt they're thinking too hard about how to.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Advertising is legalized lying. - H.G. Wells
Sam Plusnet
2016-04-01 20:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Sam Plusnet
In article <554650910.481191181.631794.poppy-
[]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Btms
Post by Sam Plusnet
Furthermore, it's in a rock solid Labour constituency.
Furtheremore what? How does this affect their profit and loss? In their
case only loss :-(
It's another reason why the government needn't try too hard to rescue
it.
Political profit and loss, not the economic version.
Although if they somehow managed it, think what a coup that would be!
But, I agree, I doubt they're thinking too hard about how to.
The optimum[1] response from HMG would be some offer of support to Tata
which sounds very positive, but doesn't actually go far enough to alter
the basic situation.

Tata will turn this down and close the plant, but HMG can claim kudos
for a jolly good try.

[1] In terms of Realpolitik.
Anne B
2016-04-02 08:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Sam Plusnet
Political profit and loss, not the economic version.
Although if they somehow managed it, think what a coup that
would be!
But, I agree, I doubt they're thinking too hard about how to.
J. P. Gilliver
I bet they are thinking very hard about it. A successful coup
wouldn't win that constituency, but it would swing votes in
marginals elsewhere.

Quite apart from the long-term strategic issues.

Anne B
Btms
2016-04-01 08:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
Post by Btms
Post by Fenny
Post by Btms
Some years ago I drove passed the Port Talbot steel works. The size of it
was mind blowing. On TV they refer to the size and wave at the background.
This doesn't come near conveying the size. It sits on a flat plain and
seems to occupy miles and miles of land. The numbers who work there must
be reflected in this. Closure will be devastating but the steel industry
has a long history of feast and famine.
The Tata steelworks in Jamshedpur are probably bigger.
And your point is? Is this works also closing? Don't understand.....but
maybe its me.
Tata is a huge company. They make a lot of steel in India in a
massive plant, probably much cheaper than they can make it in Port
Talbot.
While I have a lot of links to the British steel industry and would
like to see it continue, the privatisation of UK industries and
utilities is not likely to be reversed any time soon.
I think that the amount the government spent on bailing out the banks
was obscene. I also think that the government should do something to
help save the steel industry. But I also think that steel making
plants need to not run at a loss. Until that can happen, I think that
any investment the government might make in buying up steel works
won't save the steel industry in the long term.
Port Talbot may be huge, but it's losing money and it's tiny in
comparison with other steel works in other countries that don't make a
loss.
Thank you. Are you saying that it is too small to make a profit?
I was listening to what I think was a repeat about Tata on the radio just
before closure was announced. This made it clear Tata could well afford to
risk huge losses and walk away without financial trauma to themselves.
Success sounded iffy and based more on hope than evidence. Very sad for
folk who live in PT but I guess these things have happened for eons. Back
in the day I suppose stonehenge was the centre of some great significance.
And around here I see lots of evidence of old iron age settlements. Very
affecting to my imagination.
--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
Anne B
2016-04-01 09:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fenny
I think that the amount the government spent on bailing out
the banks
was obscene.
They didn't bail out the banks for the banks' own sake. The
banks could not and cannot be allowed to go to the wall because
if they did they would take with them the savings of literally
millions of ordinary people, and in particular of those whose
savings are too small for any other method of investing them to
be practicable. And borrowers (all those with mortgages, loans
or overdrafts) would be faced with finding money to pay off
their entire debt in one fell swoop. Not forgetting the similar
effects on small businesses.
Post by Fenny
I also think that the government should do something to
help save the steel industry.
I am sure that no-one would argue that something needs to be
done, but if steel cannot be produced in this country without
losing money, neither industry nor the government can be
expected to run it indefinitely and meet the losses from a
bottomless purse.

Anne B
Jim Easterbrook
2016-04-01 09:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anne B
Post by Fenny
I also think that the government should do something to
help save the steel industry.
I am sure that no-one would argue that something needs to be
done, but if steel cannot be produced in this country without
losing money, neither industry nor the government can be
expected to run it indefinitely and meet the losses from a
bottomless purse.
Other countries' steel industries are also losing money. There is a
temporary lack of demand and the Chinese are dumping their excess production
on the world market. Everyone's waiting for someone else to close plants and
reduce supply. The country that closes its plants will lose in the long term
as they won't have any domestic production when demand picks up again.
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
Anne B
2016-04-02 08:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Anne B
Post by Fenny
I also think that the government should do something to
help save the steel industry.
I am sure that no-one would argue that something needs to be
done, but if steel cannot be produced in this country without
losing money, neither industry nor the government can be
expected to run it indefinitely and meet the losses from a
bottomless purse.
Other countries' steel industries are also losing money. There
is a
temporary lack of demand and the Chinese are dumping their
excess production
on the world market. Everyone's waiting for someone else to
close plants and
reduce supply. The country that closes its plants will lose in
the long term
as they won't have any domestic production when demand picks
up again.
Jim
Very probable. But how long will that take, and what are they
going to do with it in the meantime? Can the plant be
mothballed? If not, what happens to the steel it produces? Steel
mountains? More dumping on the world market? If it's mothballed,
it doesn't solve any of the employment issues, and it might make
it harder to recruit a new workforce if and when demand does
pick up. Anti-dumping tariffs? But that would put up costs for
steel users in the UK and make their exports less competitive.

Don't get me wrong, in principle I am in favour of the
continuation of steel production here, and of preserving jobs
and expertise in the steel industry. I just don't think there's
a win-win solution.

Anne B
the Omrud
2016-03-31 09:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
- and they'd got onto the rather desperate case of
the steel plant, I think.
(OT: I'm puzzled how a management buy-out can possibly work: if it's
losing 1m a day, and employs 4000, then in order to continue, that means
the employees would have to contribute 250 a day to keep "their" plant
going, even if Tata give it to them for nothing; even if they worked for
nothing, I doubt many of them are on wages of 250 a day, even gross, so
that wouldn't work. But I often don't understand these money matters.)
All very sad. Don't forget the enormous pension hole. I can
understand the strategic importance of maintaining domestic steel
production
I'm not convinced I do. I'm still trying to work this through in my
mind, but it seems that we can't make steel cheaply enough any more.
Proposals to keep the works open involve the taxpayer subsidising the
contunued functioning of the factory, and then paying more for the
product it produces.

Britain has often lost whole industries when technologies and economies
changed. Where are all the individual weavers who used to work in their
own homes? How may people now work on farms compared with 100 years
ago? How many people work in fishing?

The fact that all these workers are concentrated in one town makes for a
significant tragedy for that area, and that may be a good reason to keep
the works going, but I don't undertsand the strategic argument.

Take my own industry. There is next to no semiconductor manufacture in
the UK. We are utterly reliant on plants in other countries for the
control chips which are now in just about everything, from cars to
phones to light switches and clocks. Should we set up a loss-making
plant to ensure that we can make our own?
--
David
BrritSki
2016-03-31 10:34:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by the Omrud
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
- and they'd got onto the rather desperate case of
the steel plant, I think.
(OT: I'm puzzled how a management buy-out can possibly work: if it's
losing 1m a day, and employs 4000, then in order to continue, that means
the employees would have to contribute 250 a day to keep "their" plant
going, even if Tata give it to them for nothing; even if they worked for
nothing, I doubt many of them are on wages of 250 a day, even gross, so
that wouldn't work. But I often don't understand these money matters.)
All very sad. Don't forget the enormous pension hole. I can
understand the strategic importance of maintaining domestic steel
production
I'm not convinced I do. I'm still trying to work this through in my
mind, but it seems that we can't make steel cheaply enough any more.
Proposals to keep the works open involve the taxpayer subsidising the
contunued functioning of the factory, and then paying more for the
product it produces.
Britain has often lost whole industries when technologies and economies
changed. Where are all the individual weavers who used to work in their
own homes? How may people now work on farms compared with 100 years
ago? How many people work in fishing?
The fact that all these workers are concentrated in one town makes for a
significant tragedy for that area, and that may be a good reason to keep
the works going, but I don't undertsand the strategic argument.
Take my own industry. There is next to no semiconductor manufacture in
the UK. We are utterly reliant on plants in other countries for the
control chips which are now in just about everything, from cars to
phones to light switches and clocks. Should we set up a loss-making
plant to ensure that we can make our own?
Very well said David. Obviously there are enormous repercussions for
the families and communities involved but we must face the inevitable.

Cheap steel from China or whatever means we can be more competitive in
other industries. If we or the EU impose tariffs to prevent Chinese
steel "dumping" then there will be consequences for trade with China in
other areas. UK energy is not going to be cheap while we follow the
ridiculous "carbon" reduction goals and insist that renewables are viable.

We'd do far better imo to spend (no, not "invest") money in the areas
affected on education and regeneration to offset the impact just as was
being suggested on Toady this morning.
LFS
2016-04-01 09:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by the Omrud
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
- and they'd got onto the rather desperate case of
the steel plant, I think.
(OT: I'm puzzled how a management buy-out can possibly work: if it's
losing 1m a day, and employs 4000, then in order to continue, that means
the employees would have to contribute 250 a day to keep "their" plant
going, even if Tata give it to them for nothing; even if they worked for
nothing, I doubt many of them are on wages of 250 a day, even gross, so
that wouldn't work. But I often don't understand these money matters.)
All very sad. Don't forget the enormous pension hole. I can
understand the strategic importance of maintaining domestic steel
production
I'm not convinced I do. I'm still trying to work this through in my
mind, but it seems that we can't make steel cheaply enough any more.
Proposals to keep the works open involve the taxpayer subsidising the
contunued functioning of the factory, and then paying more for the
product it produces.
One commentator observed that markets change and it is quite possible
that future shifts would make it possible to re-enter the market
profitably. If the plant is closed, this would be impossible. I don't
know enough about steel production to know if this is plausible. (Is
Chinese steel of comparable quality? Or is all steel the same? Artisanal
steel sounds a bit unlikely though, so I don't suppose a niche marketing
position is possible.)
Post by the Omrud
Britain has often lost whole industries when technologies and economies
changed. Where are all the individual weavers who used to work in their
own homes? How may people now work on farms compared with 100 years
ago? How many people work in fishing?
In 2010 there were 12,700 fishermen and 14,331 full time jobs in fish
processing. (http://www.seavision.org.uk/about/fisheries-aquaculture)
I'm quite surprised at those numbers, I would have thought there would
be fewer.

A former colleague whose family fishing business had at one time been
quite significant told me that fishing was the most dangerous industry
in the UK, with more lives regularly lost than any other.
Post by the Omrud
The fact that all these workers are concentrated in one town makes for a
significant tragedy for that area, and that may be a good reason to keep
the works going, but I don't undertsand the strategic argument.
There is also the emotional fallout, decline of a once great
manufacturing nation etc. But haven't we been here before with coal?
Post by the Omrud
Take my own industry. There is next to no semiconductor manufacture in
the UK. We are utterly reliant on plants in other countries for the
control chips which are now in just about everything, from cars to
phones to light switches and clocks. Should we set up a loss-making
plant to ensure that we can make our own?
Brexit might prompt precisely such questions.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
the Omrud
2016-04-01 16:26:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by the Omrud
Take my own industry. There is next to no semiconductor manufacture in
the UK. We are utterly reliant on plants in other countries for the
control chips which are now in just about everything, from cars to
phones to light switches and clocks. Should we set up a loss-making
plant to ensure that we can make our own?
Brexit might prompt precisely such questions.
I suspect not - the vast majority of the factories (known as FABs) are
not the EU either. Mostly they are in the USA and the Far East.
--
David
LFS
2016-04-01 16:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by the Omrud
Post by LFS
Post by the Omrud
Take my own industry. There is next to no semiconductor manufacture in
the UK. We are utterly reliant on plants in other countries for the
control chips which are now in just about everything, from cars to
phones to light switches and clocks. Should we set up a loss-making
plant to ensure that we can make our own?
Brexit might prompt precisely such questions.
I suspect not - the vast majority of the factories (known as FABs) are
not the EU either. Mostly they are in the USA and the Far East.
I wasn't thinking specifically of your industry but I can't at the
moment think of any other examples.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2016-04-01 20:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@mid.individual.net>, LFS
<***@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes:
[]
Post by LFS
One commentator observed that markets change and it is quite possible
that future shifts would make it possible to re-enter the market
Yes, I heard one saying that _China_ is currently making a loss at many
of its plants. So are stepping back. So it might be viable again at some
time in the future (at least if transport costs make some difference).
It could be a long time coming though, and it's certainly not definite.
Post by LFS
profitably. If the plant is closed, this would be impossible. I don't
know enough about steel production to know if this is plausible. (Is
I would _imagine_ it is possible to _mothball_ it and still be able to
start it again: certainly the _processing_ plant, and I would _think_
the actual making one as well, though I know little enough about it too
not to be sure. If by closed, you mean "and then cut it up for scrap,
and sell off the land", of course, then obviously it wouldn't.
Post by LFS
Chinese steel of comparable quality? Or is all steel the same?
Artisanal steel sounds a bit unlikely though, so I don't suppose a
niche marketing position is possible.)
Several of those being interviewed implied - some actually said - that
they make some of the best, or the best, steel; I suspect some of that
is bluster or (justifiable) pride, but there may be some truth. However,
Chinese steel is obviously good enough for a lot of what we need steel
for - if it wasn't, there'd be less of a problem.
[]
Post by LFS
quite significant told me that fishing was the most dangerous industry
in the UK, with more lives regularly lost than any other.
Yes, I've heard that - certainly trawling.
[]
Post by LFS
There is also the emotional fallout, decline of a once great
manufacturing nation etc. But haven't we been here before with coal?
And steam.
Post by LFS
Post by the Omrud
Take my own industry. There is next to no semiconductor manufacture in
the UK. We are utterly reliant on plants in other countries for the
control chips which are now in just about everything, from cars to
phones to light switches and clocks. Should we set up a loss-making
plant to ensure that we can make our own?
(Even if we could, we couldn't _assemble_ the consumer products as
cheaply anyway.)
Post by LFS
Brexit might prompt precisely such questions.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Advertising is legalized lying. - H.G. Wells
Chris J Dixon
2016-04-02 07:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Yes, I heard one saying that _China_ is currently making a loss at many
of its plants. So are stepping back. So it might be viable again at some
time in the future (at least if transport costs make some difference).
I know steel isn't really a container product but the figures
there are interesting. It is said that moving a container from
China to UK port costs about the same as transporting over land
from the port to its ultimate destination.

At the other end of the scale, I can buy items from the far east
on ebay for little more than UK postage would be.

eg
<http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/90-1000V-Non-Contact-LED-AC-Voltage-Detector-Pen-Volt-Sensor-Tester-Alert-Stick-/291614027249?hash=item43e58cedf1:g:mNoAAOSwHnFVsbO5>

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
Vicky
2016-04-02 08:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Yes, I heard one saying that _China_ is currently making a loss at many
of its plants. So are stepping back. So it might be viable again at some
time in the future (at least if transport costs make some difference).
I know steel isn't really a container product but the figures
there are interesting. It is said that moving a container from
China to UK port costs about the same as transporting over land
from the port to its ultimate destination.
At the other end of the scale, I can buy items from the far east
on ebay for little more than UK postage would be.
eg
<http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/90-1000V-Non-Contact-LED-AC-Voltage-Detector-Pen-Volt-Sensor-Tester-Alert-Stick-/291614027249?hash=item43e58cedf1:g:mNoAAOSwHnFVsbO5>
Chris
YANAOU. B often orders things very much more cheaply than he can buy
them in the UK, even if they come from far away.
--
Vicky
Rosalind Mitchell
2016-04-01 12:30:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I suspect that this is all umrats need to know about whether the government
will intervene:

General Election 2015: Aberavon
Stephen Kinnock (LAB) 15,416
Peter Bush (UKIP) 4,971
Edward Yi He (CON) 3,742

[...]

Majority 10,445

Rosmb
LFS
2016-04-01 14:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rosalind Mitchell
I suspect that this is all umrats need to know about whether the government
General Election 2015: Aberavon
Stephen Kinnock (LAB) 15,416
Peter Bush (UKIP) 4,971
Edward Yi He (CON) 3,742
[...]
Majority 10,445
Rosmb
Kinnock Jr made a good point that he had travelled to Mumbai to talk to
Tata but no government minister had bothered.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Btms
2016-04-01 19:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by Rosalind Mitchell
I suspect that this is all umrats need to know about whether the government
General Election 2015: Aberavon
Stephen Kinnock (LAB) 15,416
Peter Bush (UKIP) 4,971
Edward Yi He (CON) 3,742
[...]
Majority 10,445
Rosmb
Kinnock Jr made a good point that he had travelled to Mumbai to talk to
Tata but no government minister had bothered.
And what did he achieve?
--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
Marjorie
2016-04-02 08:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
- and they'd got onto the rather desperate case of
the steel plant, I think.
(OT: I'm puzzled how a management buy-out can possibly work: if it's
losing 1m a day, and employs 4000, then in order to continue, that means
the employees would have to contribute 250 a day to keep "their" plant
going, even if Tata give it to them for nothing; even if they worked for
nothing, I doubt many of them are on wages of 250 a day, even gross, so
that wouldn't work. But I often don't understand these money matters.)
All very sad. Don't forget the enormous pension hole. I can
understand the strategic importance of maintaining domestic steel
production, but at what immense cost?
I read the other day that the pension support outfit (forget its
actual name) has taken a 33% stake in BHS because of a similar
deficit.
Chris
And don't forget the huge bonuses that they will all be requiring,
regardless of the profit or loss of their enterprise ... oh no, hang on,
I'm thinking of the bankers. That was totally different, wasn't it?
Silly me?
--
Marjorie

To reply, replace dontusethisaddress with marje
Peter Percival
2017-07-10 15:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin Stevens
Post by Btms
Post by Fenny
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:52:20 +1300, kosmo richard w
Post by kosmo richard w
Actress please.
An actor is a person who acts. Regardless of gender.
I suppose it could be argued that the word actress is some sort of
modern invention? Otoh hand it is valid to say all language,
spilling of fixing the form is also a relatively new one.
"Women did not appear on stage in public in England until after the
Restoration of 1660, following which the terms actor and actress
were both used to describe female performers. Later, actor was often
restricted to men, with actress as the usual term for women.
Although actress remains in general use, actor is increasingly
preferred for performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term."
Performers of both sexes must be rare. I know that in recent times we
have all learned that the male/female distinction is not as clear as it
once seemed, but still performers who are male+female? Existing no
doubt, but rare surely?

Btw, aiaou in thinking it's jolly good that people feel more and more
free to say who or what they are rather than just pretending that they
are one of a very few possibilities that society has for too long deemed
"right"?

It also pleases me that queers are increasingly happy to call themselves
"queer" and treat that splendid word as if it is not some kind of obscenity.

So hurray for diversity in both... um... deed and word... sadly that's
come out the wrong way round.
Post by Robin Stevens
though it has citations for the use of "actresse" as far back as
1608. And doesn't mention Viola de Lessops.
Personally I'm happy for an actor of either sex to say something to
a bishop of either sex.
ObArchers: perhaps Janet Fisher could return as the next Bishop of
Felpersham?
Fisher of men?
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-10 19:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Robin Stevens
Post by Btms
Post by Fenny
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:52:20 +1300, kosmo richard w
Post by kosmo richard w
Actress please.
An actor is a person who acts. Regardless of gender.
I suppose it could be argued that the word actress is some sort of
modern invention? Otoh hand it is valid to say all language,
spilling of fixing the form is also a relatively new one.
"Women did not appear on stage in public in England until after the
Restoration of 1660, following which the terms actor and actress
were both used to describe female performers. Later, actor was often
restricted to men, with actress as the usual term for women.
Although actress remains in general use, actor is increasingly
preferred for performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term."
The OED can be used to prove that almost _anything_ "new" one objects to
has been used for centuries. (Or, sometimes, _was_ used centuries ago
but has fallen out of use.)

In the case of the term(s) act*r*, I fear that for my generation,
whatever had been the case in the near or distant past, the terms
were/are actor and actress, with no implication that either is
superior/inferior. I find the use of actor for an actress slightly
irritating, because I _assume_ it means a male, and the double-take I
have to do when it becomes clear what's going on gives me momentary
confusion that can make me miss a word or two of the conversation (or
whatever).

I _do_ sympathise with the desire for gender-neutral terms; I think some
are quite clever - firefighter, for example. (And I have no objection to
Ms [which is for a slightly different but related reason], other than
the difficulty of pronouncing it.) However, the appropriation of the
male term for the purpose doesn't work. (A male would never call himself
an actress, I [don't] think!) I appreciate the problem, and I don't have
a suggestion: the nearest I can get is thespian, but that can sound a
bit pretentious and/or imply a certain kind of act*r*.
Post by Peter Percival
Performers of both sexes must be rare. I know that in recent times we
have all learned that the male/female distinction is not as clear as it
once seemed, but still performers who are male+female? Existing no
doubt, but rare surely?
There are non-binary folk around, inside and outside the acting
profession, but society isn't sure how to work with them/us.
Post by Peter Percival
Btw, aiaou in thinking it's jolly good that people feel more and more
free to say who or what they are rather than just pretending that they
are one of a very few possibilities that society has for too long
deemed "right"?
YANA. (On the other hand, some seem more inclined to - sorry, and down,
boy! - shove their particular <insert term here> down our throats than
others.) On the whole, I prefer it when people live and let live, as
long as it doesn't impinge on anyone _else's_ way of life (which in some
cases it can't help doing). This applies to sexual orientation,
religion, politics, ...
Post by Peter Percival
It also pleases me that queers are increasingly happy to call
themselves "queer" and treat that splendid word as if it is not some
kind of obscenity.
Though the term has been narrowed: WIWAL, I _think_ - unless it was just
my innocence - that its interpretation as "peculiar" wasn't necessarily
automatically overwritten by "homosexual". (In the same way "gay" has
been narrowed - though I don't mind that so much as that community
needed a _short_ non-derogatory term. [I wonder why they picked that
word though!])
[]
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Robin Stevens
Personally I'm happy for an actor of either sex to say something to
a bishop of either sex.
!
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Robin Stevens
ObArchers: perhaps Janet Fisher could return as the next Bishop of
Felpersham?
Fisher of men?
VG!
There was a brief discussion at 8:5x this morning on toady about whether
bishops should stop wearing mitres. (Naturally, they had someone from
each camp.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Fenny
2017-07-10 23:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 20:45:39 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(And I have no objection to
Ms [which is for a slightly different but related reason], other than
the difficulty of pronouncing it.) However, the appropriation of the
male term for the purpose doesn't work. (A male would never call himself
an actress, I [don't] think!) I appreciate the problem, and I don't have
a suggestion: the nearest I can get is thespian, but that can sound a
bit pretentious and/or imply a certain kind of act*r*.
Whereas I dislike the term "Ms" bigly, as POTUS would say. I find it
most annoying that as a grown up female, I can only be referred to by
a term which denotes my marital status in some way or other, whilst
grown up males are all referred to in a way that has absolutely no
bearing on their marital status whatsoever.

I really don't care whether companies want to address my by my title.
I would prefer not to use a title at all. If an organisation needs to
know my gender, they can ask that. But forcing me to pick a title
from a list that I feel non of which I wish to be known by is applying
a term to me which is utterly irrelevant. The last company that made
me select but gave an option for "Other" let me put "None". They now
refer to me as "None <Last name>".

When the new GDPR rules come in next year, I'm hoping that there will
be an option to not select a title.
--
Fenny
Rosalind Mitchell
2016-04-01 12:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Btms
I suppose it could be argued that the word actress is some sort of modern
invention? Otoh hand it is valid to say all language, spilling of fixing
the form is also a relatively new one.
From the Guardian style guide:

actor
Use for both male and female actors; do not use actress except when in name
of award, eg Oscar for best actress. The Guardian’s view is that actress
comes into the same category as authoress, comedienne, manageress, “lady
doctor”, “male nurse” and similar obsolete terms that date from a time when
professions were largely the preserve of one sex (usually men). As Whoopi
Goldberg put it in an interview with the paper: “An actress can only play a
woman. I’m an actor – I can play anything.”

Rosmb
Loading...