States? (1 Viewer)

[Thales750]

The point is that the Liver in Liverpool has nothing to do with the organ and nobody seems to know when that spelling was adopted, various spellings are suggested for the original name but all seem to agree that it meant muddy water.

As to the missus well you were missing for a while so probably did not see my thread in the watercooler as to why I am on inconsistently, normally as now on an IPad , my desktop is noisy and is in the room next to where she is sleeping.

She is very ill now the stomach cancer is winning and it is only a matter of time, her breathing is difficult and today she has been provided with an oxygen making machine, our NHS is brilliant, as are the nurses who come each day.

Hope you and yours are well

Brian

I"m sorry Brian. both I and my daughter have lost our Mothers in the last year or so to cancer. Then my dad from heart attack. we are here to to love, and learn to be with each other. But most of all, to be thankful for all of our blessings.

Each and everyday.

 

[ColinEssex]

Ok, here's a question.

Why do houses in the USA have such high street numbers? I've seen on the telly some houses numbered 8,9, 10,000 or higher. Are there really 10,000 houses in some streets? Or at least the number of houses to make the numbers run into 4 or 5 digits?

That's one heck of a paper round

Col

 

[Alansidman]

Ok, here's a question.

Why do houses in the USA have such high street numbers? I've seen on the telly some houses numbered 8,9, 10,000 or higher. Are there really 10,000 houses in some streets? Or at least the number of houses to make the numbers run into 4 or 5 digits?

That's one heck of a paper round

Col

That is usally a result of a city planner setting out a grid and numbering the houses according to the location in the grid. These grids usually run east and west of a demarcation line and north and south of a similar line. I hope this all makes sense to you. If you are trying to find a house with a particular number you will know immediately its general location based on the grid. Quite like an excel cell address for those who cannot visualize this.

 

[ColinEssex]

It was interesting reading that 70% of Americans don't have a passport. Why should they?

The USA has everything that Europe has, ranging from sunny all-year-round beaches to snowy skiing mountains, vast deserts or lovely tree foliage in New England.

I also saw on the net that Europe sits nicely within the USA borders (size for size) so it is difficult for TV news to cover things going on nationwide. In the UK if someone is stabbed and killed then it usually makes the national news. If it happened in Italy then it doesn't make the UK news. Why should it? The same applies to the USA, if someone is stabbed and killed in California then it probobly won't make the news in New York.

I should imagine the news in New York focuses on local areas - if so (and it is the same elsewhere) then it's understandable that Americans have no idea where Europe is or even if Europe is a country.

The vastness of the USA must play a derogatory part in American peoples lack of knowlege geographically worldwide.

I therefore suggest that to the 70% without a passport - their answer would be "why bother? we have everything here"

Unfortunately to many people in the UK, because we have excellent news coverage of the whole of the UK, the Americans lack of knowlege (geographically) seems alien to us - therefore because of this Americans seem (wrongly perhaps) to be insular and ignorant of "the world".

Col

 

[KenHigg]

What knowlege of the world are you referring to? Please be specific. One or two items will be fine.

 

[ColinEssex]

I did say (if you had read my post) geographically.

Basically, I'm saying it's understandable that the perception of Americans is that they know little of what happens outside the USA because the USA is so vast.

I think that if I were American (god forbid) I would also not bother to know too much of what happens outside the USA.

You see, in the UK if we want sunshine, we go to Greece, Spain or Italy. If we want ghastly garlic ridden food, we go to France, if we want to get beaten up, we go to Glasgow on a staturday night, if we want to swim in the Italian clear waters, we go on an Italian cruise ship. Whereas, in the USA you have it all on your doorstep within one country.

I am a little envious. In fact, I saw a DVD the other day of a film called "Paul", about an alien who escapes custody from the US authorities. It had most of the things in it that we perceive Americans to be. It had Americans who want to beat people up because they are gay, it had the American cop who wondered how British police shot people without guns, it had the biblebashing christian who liked to shoot people etc.

Why do Americans make such films if that perception is wrong?

Col

 

[ColinEssex]

Isn’t awesome how we dominate your thoughts, you can’t have noon tea without thinking about us. Life is good!

Noon tea?

We have afternoon tea usually around 4pm with a small cake.

Col

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

What knowlege of the world are you referring to? Please be specific. One or two items will be fine.

Its off Cols geographical idea, but its certainly a weird fear of something "alien"

The idea of being Chinese or French as a negative is one thing, but just to speak the language a little being held against you is something else.

These ads are presumably targeted - mostly at people who need to get out of the US a little more/at all.


http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/us-election-2012/44338/shock-horreur-mitt-romney-speaks-french-says-newt

http://www.chinadebate.com/2012/01/speak-mandarin-dont-run-for-president/

I think that Cols being a little kind on the idea that the US has it all, so theres no need to leave. I mean it does - but so does Europe if you look at it in that way.

Many parts of the US's remoteness from any foreign countries may be more of an explanation - I mean anyone in Europe can drive a few hours accross a border, or jump on a plane for 50 quid and be abroad. The barrier of us and them is lessened somewhat , and is therefore when extended worldwide the mental barrier is lessened even if the geopgrpahical one isnt. We have long been used to the idea or mixing in differnat cultures. The US less so.

The "new world" - issue may also be a problem - ie lots of people left stuff behind, they escaped stuff - whether poverty. discrimation or whatever. So their view of outside the new world is tainted somehow. They forget that in the generations or years since they left, the old world has moved on too and isnt the same place that was left behind.

 

[KenHigg]

I did say (if you had read my post) geographically.

Basically, I'm saying it's understandable that the perception of Americans is that they know little of what happens outside the USA because the USA is so vast.

I think that if I were American (god forbid) I would also not bother to know too much of what happens outside the USA.

You see, in the UK if we want sunshine, we go to Greece, Spain or Italy. If we want ghastly garlic ridden food, we go to France, if we want to get beaten up, we go to Glasgow on a staturday night, if we want to swim in the Italian clear waters, we go on an Italian cruise ship. Whereas, in the USA you have it all on your doorstep within one country.

I am a little envious. In fact, I saw a DVD the other day of a film called "Paul", about an alien who escapes custody from the US authorities. It had most of the things in it that we perceive Americans to be. It had Americans who want to beat people up because they are gay, it had the American cop who wondered how British police shot people without guns, it had the biblebashing christian who liked to shoot people etc.

Why do Americans make such films if that perception is wrong?

Col

I didn't think you'd come up with an example to support your argument. I'm glad all Brits don't base their perception of the US on alien movies

We have the same issue over here though - A misguided perception of the UK. I used to wonder why the Queen thought she was better than everyone else until I saw them interviewing people in a mob in front of Buckingham palace after some kind of wedding. What a bunch of dopes. She is has to be smarter than the ones they showed on your wonderful, government censored BBC. Some dorky looking guy had built a hat with some royal mementos he had collected. Another girl was all giddy like she was about to pee on herself. Please tell me they had to look these wackos up in the crowd and they weren't typical...

 

[tehNellie]

I didn't think you'd come up with an example to support your argument. I'm glad all Brits don't base their perception of the US on alien movies

We have the same issue over here though - A misguided perception of the UK. I used to wonder why the Queen thought she was better than everyone else until I saw them interviewing people in a mob in front of Buckingham palace after some kind of wedding. What a bunch of dopes. She is has to be smarter than the ones they showed on your wonderful, government censored BBC. Some dorky looking guy had built a hat with some royal mementos he had collected. Another girl was all giddy like she was about to pee on herself. Please tell me they had to look these wackos up in the crowd and they weren't typical...

Huh? The BBC isn't part of the government and the government has no editorial control over the BBC any more than they have over Sky.

All broadcast media, even Murdoch's, in the UK is obliged to be politically impartial but that's about it in terms of legislative censorship (obscenity laws aside) that I can think of.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

I didn't think you'd come up with an example to support your argument. I'm glad all Brits don't base their perception of the US on alien movies

We have the same issue over here though - A misguided perception of the UK. I used to wonder why the Queen thought she was better than everyone else until I saw them interviewing people in a mob in front of Buckingham palace after some kind of wedding. What a bunch of dopes. She is has to be smarter than the ones they showed on your wonderful, government censored BBC. Some dorky looking guy had built a hat with some royal mementos he had collected. Another girl was all giddy like she was about to pee on herself. Please tell me they had to look these wackos up in the crowd and they weren't typical...

In that crowd - it was probably a reasonable sample!

 

[KenHigg]

Huh? The BBC isn't part of the government and the government has no editorial control over the BBC any more than they have over Sky.

All broadcast media, even Murdoch's, in the UK is obliged to be politically impartial but that's about it in terms of legislative censorship (obscenity laws aside) that I can think of.

Wikipedia:

The BBC is an autonomous public service broadcaster[5] that operates under a Royal Charter[6] and a Licence and Agreement from the Home Secretary.[7] Within the United Kingdom its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee,[8] which is charged to all British households, companies and organisations using any type of equipment to record and/or receive live television broadcasts;[9] the level of the fee is set annually by the British Government and agreed by Parliament.[10]

Looks like it's run by the government to me.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Wikipedia:

Looks like it's run by the government to me.

The clue Ken is autonomous.

 

[KenHigg]

autonomous:

adjective
1. Government .
a. self-governing; independent; subject to its own laws only.

How can it be autonomous when the the government sets the fees, etc?

Sorry, but the following seems very political:

2009 Editorial Standards Committee reportIn April 2009, the Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) of the BBC Trust published a report into three complaints brought against two news items involving Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen.[8] The report received widespread coverage in the UK and in Israel.[9][10][11][12][13]

The complaints included 24 allegations of breaching BBC guidelines on accuracy or impartiality of which three were fully or partially upheld.[10] The Independent's Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk was particularly critical of the ESC report, saying that the BBC Trust is "now a mouthpiece for the Israeli lobby".[12] An editorial in The Independent said that the report demonstrated "a terrible absence of good judgement".[13] Michael Lyons' response to the editorial, also published in The Independent, said that it is important to take complaints seriously and to be scrupulously careful about standards of accuracy and impartiality so that the BBC's reputation for fairness and impartiality is maintained.[14]

[edit] Future of the TrustThe BBC Trust has already come under severe pressure by the coalition government. Both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats have been highly critical of the Trust model, stating that it has "failed".[15] Both parties favour some kind of external regulation of the BBC.

Despite some early rhetoric about abolishing the Trust, the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has made clear that he would only act within the current Royal Charter, so major changes are unlikely until after the Charter expires in 2016. He has instead expressed his support for changing the name of the Trust and installing a new non-executive chairman on the BBC's Executive Board.[16][17]

 

[tehNellie]

Wikipedia:

Looks like it's run by the government to me.

I suppose it is technically possible for a government to redraw the BBC Charter (Article 6 covers independence, article 23 places responsibility for maintenence of the independence of the BBC on the trustees and is second only to representing the interests of the licence payers in priority), sack the entire board of trustees, appoint people that they know will toe their line and have them, in turn, sack the entire BBC board of directors and a new executive Director who could then appoint more yes men to the board to direct the editorial policy of the BBC.

You still couldn't have 24 hours a day of "Isn't David Cameron a lovely chap" followed by "George Osbourne isn't really a smug ****" as all UK broadcasters, not just the BBC, have an obligation to be editorially neutral when it comes to politics.

If they're still around in 2016 I think there will be some major changse to the BBC, The Tories are very much in Murdoch's pocket and he really doesn't like the beeb.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

autonomous:

How can it be autonomous when the the government sets the fees, etc?

Sorry, but the following seems very political:

Even a impartial organisation needs to be funded, I cant think of a better way of representing all views than enshrining in law that all views pay for it. What it then does within its existence and impartial remit is up to it. Whats the alternative?


Of course there are always areas where each side argues that its not completely balanced. Its inevitable when covering issues that one side or another feels agreived by the coverage at one time or an other.

I have never heard any political party or group here in the UK complain that the BBC generally (rather than single one off topic) isnt as impartial as we could reasonable hope it to be.

The fact the text you posted exists - puts the BBC streets ahead of most media organisation in terms of impartiality and transparency.

 

[Alansidman]

It is difficult to understand another person's feelings, beliefs, wants, desires or political attitudes until you have walked a mile in their shoes.

Since this is difficult to do, our perception of others becomes our own reality.

 

[KenHigg]

...editorially neutral when it comes to politics.

There's no such thing.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

There's no such thing.

Thats a sad statement - and not one I agree with.

 

[KenHigg]

Even a impartial organisation needs to be funded, I cant think of a better way of representing all views than enshrining in law that all views pay for it. What it then does within its existence and impartial remit is up to it. Whats the alternative?


Of course there are always areas where each side argues that its not completely balanced. Its inevitable when covering issues that one side or another feels agreived by the coverage at one time or an other.

I have never heard any political party or group here in the UK complain that the BBC generally (rather than single one off topic) isnt as impartial as we could reasonable hope it to be.

The fact the text you posted exists - puts the BBC streets ahead of most media organisation in terms of impartiality and transparency.

Given the alternative in the UK are tabloids, the BBC probably does look pretty good. The bar is not very high...

Before this goes off topic, it's no better in the states, the monster is simply a different color...