Royal boobs

[Pabmusic]

Now wildly off-boob, but this is not the case with 'I' and 'me': it's now pretty common for my well-educated colleagues to say (e.g.) 'If that happens please contact Sarah or I'.

(This, I take it, is a consequence of the misinterpretation of the rule about 'You and I are going' rather than 'You and me are going' etc.)

Beware of becoming 'off-boob'! I'll add to the off-boobism.

You're right, of course; an awful lot of people think that, to talk proper, you must always say 'you and I', because it (supposedly) sounds posh. Again, it's the same principle as 'he' and 'him' - which doesn't seem to cause difficulty.

[Pianorak]

We need a queen who can commit the occasional outrage against good taste, it would work wonders for the image. . .

Would we still have a monarchy if the late Princess Margaret Rose had been the first-borne? Just wondering.

[Hornspieler]

Things that could have been better placed.

Around 5.30 last evening, there was a commercial on one of the TV channels inviting viewers to send for - "The Book of Garden Birds" Among the contents listed was "Great Tits"

No, honest! Did anyone else see it? (or them?)

HS

Edit: I think it was not a book but a Magazine, because I seem to remeber the words " ... send for your free copy to ..." so it was probably one of those nature programmes.

[ahinton]

If they don't like it they can give it up, take the money . live quietly somewhere. and leave us alone.

It would not be so easy as that to "give it up", actually but, more to the point, what makes you think that doing so would diminish media interest in them? - in fact, I'd submit that there might well be a chance that such action might even increase it!

Everybody I know thinks they are a bunch of useless spongers

Who, W&K? (that wouldn't constitute even a quorum, let alone a "bunch"). The British royal family as a whole? All royal families the world over? But why leave it there? The media decides who the media is interested in and there'll always be someone...

[french frank]

If they don't like it they can give it up, take the money . live quietly somewhere. and leave us alone.Everybody I know thinks they are a bunch of useless spongers......

I wonder whether there's a point of principle here, or whether one's view varies depending on one's attitude to the monarchy/Royal family?

In other words, if a woman broke off a relationship and her ex subsequently acted as a Peeping Tom (which I believe is in some circumstances can be a criminal offence), took photographs of her undressing and posted them on Facebook, would that have served her right for going out with him and then breaking it off? Regardless of what one thinks of the monarchy, doesn't everyone have a right to protection under the law, and a right to privacy?

[MrGongGong]

doesn't everyone have a right to protection under the law, and a right to privacy?

It would be nice to think so
but we have abandoned that years ago in the name of a "war on terror" and in the "interests of protecting citizens from criminals"...........

it's far too late to suggest that we somehow have laws to prevent people being photographed , we are all photographed all the time

Surely the "point of principle" is that many of the British media who are so offended by this are quite happy to publish photographs on the third page of their papers and to have pages of "royal news" etc etc which is more than a little hypocritical IMV

[french frank]

It would be nice to think so
but we have abandoned that years ago in the name of a "war on terror" and in the "interests of protecting citizens from criminals"...........

But these are in certain defined cases where, for the surveillance to be lawful, there has to be some evidence that some sort of criminal offence is being carried out or contemplated.

it's far too late to suggest that we somehow have laws to prevent people being photographed , we are all photographed all the time

We are not all being individually photographed on our private premises in circumstances where we have every reason to believe we are not being overlooked.

Surely the "point of principle" is that many of the British media who are so offended by this are quite happy to publish photographs on the third page of their papers and to have pages of "royal news" etc etc which is more than a little hypocritical IMV

That may be "a" point of principle but it is a completely separate issue. Women - and men - who pose, paid or unpaid, naked or semi-naked, for photographers in the knowledge that the photographs will be published are not being photographed non-consensually and their privacy is not being invaded.

[Mary Chambers]

it's now pretty common for my well-educated colleagues to say (e.g.) 'If that happens please contact Sarah or I'.

Then, if I may say so, they are not very well-educated, unless they are doing it on purpose for some reason. They wouldn't say "Please contact I", would they? The mistake is very common, I agree - I've heard the Queen make it.

I admit I don't always use "whom" in informal situations, though. I know when I should, but I don't. My pedantry is selective.

How did we get onto this? I must look back and find out.

[MrGongGong]

But these are in certain defined cases where, for the surveillance to be lawful, there has to be some evidence that some sort of criminal offence is being carried out or contemplated.

like attending a march against an illegal war ?
it would seem that the evidence that emerges is that this isn't the case
you seem to have a faith in the law and the police that many of us don't share

We are not all being individually photographed on our private premises in circumstances where we have every reason to believe we are not being overlooked.

Some of us are with no idea that this is happening but thats ok because we aren't "royal"

That may be "a" point of principle but it is a completely separate issue.

surely it's part of the same spectrum ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2012/sep/17/topless-kate-pictures-uk-papers

[Bryn]

Then, if I may say so, they are not very well-educated, unless they are doing it on purpose for some reason. They wouldn't say "Please contact I", would they? The mistake is very common, I agree - I've heard the Queen make it.

I admit I don't always use "whom" in informal situations, though. I know when I should, but I don't. My pedantry is selective.

How did we get onto this? I must look back and find out.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Between-You-Little-Book-English/dp/1840464836#reader_1840464836

[salymap]

I was taught to take away the name of other person. It immediately becomes clear whether I or me fits the sentence.

[Serial_Apologist]

surely it's part of the same spectrum ?

Not to a legalistic mindframe, GG.

It's all a matter of context...

[Ferretfancy]

Thurber cartoon lady " So I said to him, whom do you think you are, anyways?"

[Serial_Apologist]

Then, if I may say so, they are not very well-educated, unless they are doing it on purpose for some reason. They wouldn't say "Please contact I", would they?

They would in Bristol, my luvverr.

I put it all down to this Bristlespeak gettin out 'n' invadin' everywhere, like.

[MrGongGong]

Not to a legalistic mindframe, GG.

It's all a matter of context...

Bingo