The Queen is dead.

[Udayana]

Yes, absolutely. The same took place when Diana died i.e. the mass hypnosis and hysteria. What is annoying is the media, especially the BBC, who practically encourage it by interviewing so-and-so who has travelled miles or a mum who has carried her toddler all through the night. Poor toddler, am sure late maj. would have thought, 'that child should be tucked-up in bed'. These people deserve a medal is the psychological undertone but then the media thrive on such an action. Ah, well, nothing stranger than folk ...

Indeed, as Prof D suggested earlier this is probably because the BBC sees itself as being a core part of, and maintaining, the UK Establishment. If this was happening elsewhere, say Iran, India or any non-Christian nation, it would be portrayed as religious fanaticism.

[Nearly Sane]

'Don't tell Jeffrey that!'

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1569776818189656065?t=pt80bFCzbHLyOtHEwrHpZw&s=08

[Nearly Sane]

Ffs! Even in the morass of mournsickness we are seeing, this is the stupidest piece of vacuous idiocy by a feckin distance.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-ii-s-funeral-most-important-event-world-will-ever-see-lindsay-hoyle-says/ar-AA11Y5Go

[Gordon]

I'd always thought he seemed like one of the more grounded and sensible people in the Westminster circus: turns out I was wrong since he's clearly caught the mindless sychophantic hysteria that is doing the rounds among the monarchically inclined.

Hopefully, come Wednesday, he and lots of others will be over the worst of it.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd always thought he seemed like one of the more grounded and sensible people in the Westminster circus: turns out I was wrong since he's clearly caught the mindless sychophantic hysteria that is doing the rounds among the monarchically inclined.

Hopefully, come Wednesday, he and lots of others will be over the worst of it.

He's been utterly useless as Speaker.

[SqueakyVoice]

He's been utterly useless as Speaker.

Agreed. Everytime I've watched PMQs, it looks like he's making sure everyone is quiet while he fills in a crossword puzzle.

[Steve H]

Ffs! Even in the morass of mournsickness we are seeing, this is the stupidest piece of vacuous idiocy by a feckin distance.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-ii-s-funeral-most-important-event-world-will-ever-see-lindsay-hoyle-says/ar-AA11Y5Go

Ridiculous thing to say, even for a devout monarchist, but everyone says silly things occasionally.
You missed a goood joke by not calling it "mourning sickness" - or was that what you meant to say? keyboard playing up?

[Steve H]

Just seen Pres. and Dr Biden arriving at Buck House. Dr Biden actually appeared to say "thank you" to the gorilla in a suit who opened the car door for her! Most VIPs ignore car-door-openers.

[Nearly Sane]

Ridiculous thing to say, even for a devout monarchist, but everyone says silly things occasionally.
You missed a goood joke by not calling it "mourning sickness" - or was that what you meant to say? keyboard playing up?

Different joke. But I prefer your's

[Steve H]

Been watching BBC news channel, with some tiresome bloke doing sign language for the deaf to one side, which is bloody irritating if you don't need it. I'm deaf enough to usually use subtitles myself, but they don't appear to be available (it's live, of course, but live subtitles are usually possible.) I do hope the sign-language bloke isn't going to be there throughout the coverage. Why do sl interpreters pull such ridiculous faces?

[Gordon]

Been watching BBC news channel, with some tiresome bloke doing sign language for the deaf to one side, which is bloody irritating if you don't need it. I'm deaf enough to usually use subtitles myself, but they don't appear to be available (it's live, of course, but live subtitles are usually possible.) I do hope the sign-language bloke isn't going to be there throughout the coverage. Why do sl interpreters pull such ridiculous faces?

Because in BSL facial expressions are used to convey meaning.

Most Deaf people who use sign language in the UK use British Sign Language (BSL). It is a rich combination of hand gestures, facial expressions and body language and, like English, has its own grammar, syntax and lexicons.

https://signhealth.org.uk/resources/learn-about-deafness/british-sign-language-and-english/

[Steve H]

I fail to see how BSL can be a language in its own right. If it was it could have a written form, but it doesn't: BSL users write in English.

[Gordon]

I fail to see how BSL can be a language in its own right. If it was it could e a written form, but it doesn't: BSL users write in English.

It is a structured means of communication, and for many deaf people it is their primary means of communication - hence in families (such as in one family I know) with deaf children the hearing family members may learn to use BSL.

If you have ever seen deaf people signing to each other I think you'd probably agree that they are using a non-verbal language.   

[Aruntraveller]

It is recognised as a language:

https://rnid.org.uk/information-and-support/deaf-awareness/british-sign-language/

[Nearly Sane]

I fail to see how BSL can be a language in its own right. If it was it could have a written form, but it doesn't: BSL users write in English.

https://youtu.be/oK9gfTxM1g8

[Gordon]

https://youtu.be/oK9gfTxM1g8

I'm going to start learning some of these immediately!

[Nearly Sane]

.

[Anchorman]

 BSL is

I fail to see how BSL can be a language in its own right. If it was it could have a written form, but it doesn't: BSL users write in English.

recognised as a language in its own right, just as Gaelic, Welsh, Scots and English are.

[Steve H]

BSL is recognised as a language in its own right, just as Gaelic, Welsh, Scots and English are.

Well, it shouldn't be, for reasons I've already given. It is, of course, essential for the deaf, and enormously liberating for them, but making extravagant and unfounded claims for it is unhelpful. And another argument: when no sign exists for a word, and they have to spell it out using finger-spelling, they presumably spell out the English word.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, it shouldn't be, for reasons I've already given. It is, of course, essential for the deaf, and enormously liberating for them, but making extravagant and unfounded claims for it is unhelpful. And another argument: when no sign exists for a word, and they have to spell it out using finger-spelling, they presumably spell out the English word.

I'll go with the opinion of deaf people.

[Aruntraveller]

Well, it shouldn't be, for reasons I've already given. It is, of course, essential for the deaf, and enormously liberating for them, but making extravagant and unfounded claims for it is unhelpful. And another argument: when no sign exists for a word, and they have to spell it out using finger-spelling, they presumably spell out the English word.

Languages on the Indian subcontinent frequently use English words when they don't exist in their languages, I wouldn't dismiss their languages on that basis.

[Gordon]

Well, it shouldn't be, for reasons I've already given. It is, of course, essential for the deaf, and enormously liberating for them, but making extravagant and unfounded claims for it is unhelpful. And another argument: when no sign exists for a word, and they have to spell it out using finger-spelling, they presumably spell out the English word.

Have to say - I think you are wrong.

[Anchorman]

Well, it shouldn't be, for reasons I've already given. It is, of course, essential for the deaf, and enormously liberating for them, but making extravagant and unfounded claims for it is unhelpful. And another argument: when no sign exists for a word, and they have to spell it out using finger-spelling, they presumably spell out the English word.

No
Not necessarily.
Finger-spelling uses the Deaf-Blind alphabet.
Some signs are actually contractions, as in braille, where a character can stand for an abbreviated word, a number, a phrase or punctuation dependant on the position of the sentence.
The blind club which I run used to have a deaf/blind member, and many of us learned DBA to communicate.
It's come a long wa y since the days of Hellen Keller.

[Aruntraveller]

Voices not represented on our TV screens:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/19/undemocratic-facade-four-people-on-why-they-avoided-the-queens-funeral?

[ProfessorDavey]

So the numbers are in.

Official viewing figures of 28 million (or 26 million if you read the Times!). Sure that's a bid number, but I would suggest nowhere as high as the hyperbole which suggested this would be the most watched event in the UK ever, only question being how much higher than the previous record.

But the reality is that the viewing figures broke no records, indeed aren't even the highest of the 2020s (that record remains with the 2021 Euros final). And not close to the numbers that watched Diana's funeral. And putting the 28 million in context - despite the wall-to-wall mourn-fest just 42% actually watched the funeral - the majority didn't. Believe the BBC and you'd have thought that everyone would be respectfully watching except half a dozen hardened republicans (whose voices weren't permitted to be heard) and a bunch of weird and undesirable Scots nats.

And we also have the official numbers for 'The Queue' - we were being told that a million people would participate, then 750,000 or maybe 400,000. The reality, 250,000 - over 4 days, so about the capacity of Arsenal's stadium over a 24 hour period. Yet we were told that 'unprecedented' (overly used in the past 10 days) numbers of people would come to London to pay their respects, causing huge challenges for TfL etc. Yet transport etc comfortably gets the same number of people attending the queue in 24 hours into a stadium in about a hour and out again probably in 15 mins.

Security issues I get, challenge with dealing with the numbers - nope. London does these numbers all the time.