Boris' lies continue

[Nasti Chestikov]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61052643

Apparently he's in the Ukraine again.

Yeah, of course he is, the last time he was allegedly there I'd spotted him jogging around his village in the UK, very safe from Putin's bombs..

They haven't even had the nouse to dress him differently.

I always suspected there was an ulterior to the dumbing down of the British education system....now I know why.

[Iain Archer]

Nasti Chestikov <nasti.c...@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at
09:29:46:

I think the question of the timing of reports of his visits to a warzone
was adequately dealt with in your previous ("Being lied to by the
Press?", 9 April 22) thread:
<https://groups.google.com/g/uk.legal.moderated/c/YZUBRedvUW8>.
--
Iain

[Roland Perry]

In message <2963ea6d-53a7-463a...@googlegroups.com>, at
09:29:46 on Fri, 17 Jun 2022, Nasti Chestikov
<nasti.c...@gmail.com> remarked:

>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61052643
>
>Apparently he's in the Ukraine again.
>
>Yeah, of course he is, the last time he was allegedly there I'd spotted
>him jogging around his village in the UK, very safe from Putin's
>bombs..

I think we established that it was entirely possible to find a timeline
which fitted both excursions.

--
Roland Perry

[Theo]

Nasti Chestikov <nasti.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61052643
>
> Apparently he's in the Ukraine again.

I was wondering why this picture:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/17/boris-johnson-doncaster-kyiv-tory-mps-red-wall-england-north
shows him carrying a notebook with 'Tuesday 5th April' (or possibly
'Thursday 5th April') written on it.

and I wondered if it's a slipup by the photo editor, or if some press
release has been recycling old images.

(photo credit says 'Ukrainian presidential press service/EPA' but it's on
BJ's Twitter feed)

Theo

[David McNeish]

It's in the same batch as photos of their press conference with the date
"17 June" on the front of their lecterns.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 17 June 2022 at 21:00:11 UTC+1, nasti.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61052643
>
> Apparently he's in the Ukraine again.
>
> Yeah, of course he is, the last time he was allegedly there I'd spotted him jogging around his village in the UK, very safe from Putin's bombs..
>
> They haven't even had the nouse to dress him differently.

He usually looks like that - Zelensky was dressed differently

Of course the actual date and time of the trip would not be notified in advance, indeed a different official diary entry would be best otherwise: -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto#Death

[notya...@gmail.com]

OTOH Johnson wasn't - even down to the same tie! So where was he really?

[RustyHinge]

Could it be an Old Etonian tie?

In a previous life I have been known to (often) wear my Mickey Baer
Benefit Year Essex Cricket Club tie.

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

[kat]

It's a blue tie, Tories wear blue, Labour people wear red. Party colours.
--
kat
>^..^<

[Roland Perry]

In message <ffde264e-b157-472f...@googlegroups.com>, at
08:31:30 on Sat, 18 Jun 2022, David McNeish <davi...@gmail.com>
remarked:

It's commonplace for the media to use "stock photos", which can
sometimes be decades out of date (eg shots of long obsolete
railway trains on tracks to illustrate a story about rail strike).

I wouldn't read too much into it.
--
Roland Perry

[David McNeish]

Comments elsewhere suggest it's government practice to indicate the date that
particular notebook was started. I doubt it's to remind the PM what today's date
is...

[Iain Archer]

David McNeish <davi...@gmail.com> wrote on Sun, 19 Jun 2022 at
01:45:33:

>On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 06:08:54 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ffde264e-b157-472f...@googlegroups.com>, at
>> 08:31:30 on Sat, 18 Jun 2022, David McNeish <davi...@gmail.com>
>> remarked:
>> >On Saturday, 18 June 2022 at 11:52:49 UTC+1, Theo wrote:
>> >> Nasti Chestikov <nasti.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61052643
>> >> >
>> >> > Apparently he's in the Ukraine again.
>> >> I was wondering why this picture:
>> >>
>> >>https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/17/boris-johnson-doncaster
>> >>-kyiv-tory-mps-red-wall-england-north
>> >> shows him carrying a notebook with 'Tuesday 5th April' (or possibly
>> >> 'Thursday 5th April') written on it.
>> >>
>> >> and I wondered if it's a slipup by the photo editor, or if some press
>> >> release has been recycling old images.
>> >>
>> >> (photo credit says 'Ukrainian presidential press service/EPA' but it's on
>> >> BJ's Twitter feed)
>> >
>> >It's in the same batch as photos of their press conference with the date
>> >"17 June" on the front of their lecterns.
>> It's commonplace for the media to use "stock photos", which can
>> sometimes be decades out of date (eg shots of long obsolete
>> railway trains on tracks to illustrate a story about rail strike).
>>
>> I wouldn't read too much into it.
>

The use of a stock photograph would in any case have been flagged
almost immediately by journalists and savvy readers after a quick check
on tineye.com or Google.

>Comments elsewhere suggest it's government practice to indicate the
>date that particular notebook was started. I doubt it's to remind the
>PM what today's date is...

It's already three months old. Any indications of its purpose? Doodles,
latest launch codes, autograph album, ... ?
--
Iain

[Roland Perry]

In message <lks08aA$svri...@gmail.com>, at 11:32:31 on Sun, 19 Jun
2022, Iain Archer <iane...@gmail.com> remarked:

The only time I've ever known that happen is trainspotters, which is why
I used that as the example.

>>Comments elsewhere suggest it's government practice to indicate the
>>date that particular notebook was started. I doubt it's to remind the
>>PM what today's date is...
>
>It's already three months old. Any indications of its purpose?
>Doodles, latest launch codes, autograph album, ... ?

It's said that the PM's diary for one-to-one meetings consists of
5-minute slots, each of which will be on a fairly different topic, and
each topic would probably need its own book, so it won't fill up very
quickly.
--
Roland Perry

[Andy Burns]

Nasti Chestikov wrote:

> They haven't even had the nouse to dress him differently.

Videos from Ukraine's national broadcaster UATV.

April
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXF0gY4te5o>

June
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwInKThVorg>

One suit looks black, the other looks charcoal
one shirt looks white, the other looks cream
one tie looks dark blue, the other lighter blue
in one he's wearing a UK/UA enamel badge on his lapel.

[The Todal]

Odd how in America, the Republican Party (conservative, reactionary) has
red as its colour, and the Democrats have blue.

Reminds me that in days gone by, blue was for little girls and pink was
for little boys. Or so I read somewhere.

[Mark Goodge]

The standardisation of political colours is relatively recent. The Conservative
Party used red as its dominant colour until it was hijacked by the nascent
Labour party. The Republican Party originally used blue, as that was the colour
of Union uniforms in the civil war. It wasn't until the mid 20th century that
colours began to be consistently aligned along party lines.

The reason it took so long is that, prior to mass-market colour printing and
colour TV, political campaigning via the media was in monochrome. Logos and
slogans were much more relevant to national politics. Colour really only matterd
locally, where in-person campaigning meant that voters could see what the
candidates were wearing. And colour choices, therefore, also tended to be local,
with candidates often picking a colour scheme which related to local issues
rather than national.

>Reminds me that in days gone by, blue was for little girls and pink was
>for little boys. Or so I read somewhere.

That's true. Originally, young children (up to around 5 or 6) tended to wear
gender neutral white clothing - gender neutral because that way it could be
handed down through the family over the years irrespective of the sex of the
child, and white because white needs no dye to make and can be cheaply cleaned
with bleach rather than needing more espensive detergent.

When colours became more affordable, it became fashionable to dress children in
pastel shades, but that was still partly a question of cost - a pastel colour
requires less dye and, being pastel to begin with, doesn't visibly fade so much
with repeated washing. And pink, at the time, wasn't considered a separate
colour, it was considered to be pastel red.

So pink was the colour for boys, because red is a commmon military colour (which
in turn is because of its association with blood) and therefore associated with
masculinity, while pastel blue was for girls because darker blue was associated
with purity and femininity - it was common for the Virgin Mary to be depicted
wearing blue in paintings, for example. And, like political colours, it wasn't
until the mid 20th century when this flipped and the current fashion for pink
girls and blue boys was established.

Mark

[Max Demian]

Most colour coding is arbitrary. Take traffic signals. /Obviously/ red
for stop as red is for danger. But the red/green lights (amber came
later) come from the red/green port/starboard lights on ships and
aircraft wings, so they could easily have been the other way round. Then
we would say it's red for go as it is a fierce colour, and green is calm
so you stay put.

--
Max Demian

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:28:38 +0100, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>
>Most colour coding is arbitrary. Take traffic signals. /Obviously/ red
>for stop as red is for danger. But the red/green lights (amber came
>later) come from the red/green port/starboard lights on ships and
>aircraft wings, so they could easily have been the other way round. Then
>we would say it's red for go as it is a fierce colour, and green is calm
>so you stay put.

Red and green on traffic lights came from the existing use of red and green on
the railways. The earliest railway signals were coloured flags, with red being
used to indicate danger (and hence to stop). The OED has citations for red flags
being used as a warning as early as 1777. The use of green for "go" is later -
the earliest railway flags used red for danger, green for caution and white for
clear - but red was established as the colour for danger, or stop, long before
road traffic signals even existed, and green had come to mean go by the time
signals made the jump from the railways to the roads. The very first road
traffic signal was installed near the Houses of Parliament in 1868 and looked
exactly like a railway signal of the time, with a semaphore arm for use in the
daytime and red/green lamps (lit by gas) for night visibility. Pure colour light
traffic lights came later, in 1921, but by then red and green already had the
meanings they have today. There was never any question that the roads would have
used different colours.

There's no direct evidence for it, but it's also possible (and plausible) that
red for stop and green for go comes from the use of red and green to indicate
port and starboard on ships. There's a very long standing (so long standing that
its origins are lost on the mists of time, and was established long before roads
and railways ever existed) that, on the open water, you give way to starboard
(later supplemented by "steam gives way to sail"). What that means is that if
two ships are on an intersecting course (ie, a collision course), then the ship
which can see a red light on the other ship is the one which has to give way,
and the one which can see a green light on the other ship is the one which has
right of way. So, again, red means "stop" (or "change course"), and green means
"go" (or "continue").

Mark

[RustyHinge]

On 21/06/2022 10:42, Mark Goodge wrote:

> So pink was the colour for boys, because red is a commmon military colour (which
> in turn is because of its association with blood) and therefore associated with
> masculinity, while pastel blue was for girls because darker blue was associated
> with purity and femininity - it was common for the Virgin Mary to be depicted
> wearing blue in paintings, for example. And, like political colours, it wasn't
> until the mid 20th century when this flipped and the current fashion for pink
> girls and blue boys was established.

Red tunics generally were so coloured so they didn't show (fresh) blood
so starkly, similarly the nether garment of the Light Brigade ("M'Cherry
Bums" of Cardigan).

Now, in the US of A you can take your choice - Pinko could grace either
end of the political spectrum.

[Roland Perry]

In message <ade3bh1ovvq1co4jp...@4ax.com>, at 13:58:39 on
Tue, 21 Jun 2022, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:28:38 +0100, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Most colour coding is arbitrary. Take traffic signals. /Obviously/ red
>>for stop as red is for danger. But the red/green lights (amber came
>>later) come from the red/green port/starboard lights on ships and
>>aircraft wings, so they could easily have been the other way round. Then
>>we would say it's red for go as it is a fierce colour, and green is calm
>>so you stay put.
>
>Red and green on traffic lights came from the existing use of red and green on
>the railways. The earliest railway signals were coloured flags, with red being
>used to indicate danger (and hence to stop).

Wasn't there also something about an actress's red knickers?

--
Roland Perry