There was much in the article that proved this wasn't true. The examples where both had been used. The quote from a BBC presenter saying he'd continue using BC/AD. And, most importantly, the relegated-to-the-end-in-the-hope-no-one-sees-it quote from a BBC spokesman which stated:
'The BBC has not issued editorial guidance on the date systems. Both AD and BC, and CE and BCE are widely accepted date systems and the decision on which term to use lies with individual production and editorial teams.'
In case there was any doubt, the BBC also told the Guardian's Reality Check:
Whilst the BBC uses BC and AD like most people as standard terminology it is also possible for individuals to use different terminology if they wish to, particularly as it is now commonly used in historical research.
So BC/AD is used as 'standard' but the BBC allows people to use BCE/CE, based on personal preference.
Knowing that is the case, why did the Mail on Sunday decide to run its 'BC/AD dropped' story? And why have other newspapers and columnists continue to repeat the 'ban' lie as if it is true?
On Sunday, the Telegraph's website churned out a quick news story that repeated the claims despite also including (at the end, of course) the BBC's quote denying them.
In the Mail's RightMinds section, James Delingpole said of the BBC:
No longer will its website refer to those bigoted, Christian-centric concepts AD (as in Anno Domini – the Year of Our Lord) and BC (Before Christ)...All reference to Christ has been expunged.
This depite the BBC's denial - which he doesn't mention - and despite the fact there are many references to BC and AD on the BBC's website.
Either Delingpole knew this, and wrote that the terms had been 'expunged' anyway, or he didn't check, and wrote it without knowing for sure. It's very poor practice either way. And that's not a first for Delingpole - he also repeated the £32-loaf-of-bread nonsense a day after that first appeared, despite it being completely wrong.
On Sunday evening, RightMinds ran another column on the subject, this time from Reverend Dr Peter Mullen, who once 'joked' about tattooing homosexuals with health warnings. It begins:
No one should be surprised that the BBC has stopped using the abbreviations all us have always known: BC for Before Christ and AD for Anno Domini - the years of our Lord.
Since they haven't, it's not the best start. And it doesn't get any better:
Because the BBC is the very vanguard of the secularizing tendency which has declared itself as wanting to obliterate Christianity from public life and the public discussion of important moral and political affairs.
This hatred of our Christian heritage...
To be honest, I don't think the BBC's undoubted loathing of our Christian heritage is the main issue.
They just loath anything that smacks of tradition and value and Englishness, of all that most of us were brought up to respect.
Like Stalin or Pol Pot, the BBC would like to abolish all reverence for the past
Mullen's rant was published at 6.27pm on Sunday night - less than an hour after BBC1 broadcast 30-minutes of hymns and tradition in Songs of Praise: 50 Amazing Years. Earlier in the day, BBC Radio 4 had broadcast Sunday Worship. Every weekday the same station broadcasts Prayer for the Day, Thought for the Day and the Daily Service. Is this the BBC's 'undoubted loathing of our Christian heritage'?
Moreover, thirty-five minutes into Sunday's episode of Antiques Roadshow expert John Axford used both BC and AD. This was two hours after Mullen had told everyone the BBC had 'stopped using' the abbreviations.
It was somewhat inevitable that Melanie Phillips would also mention it in her column in Monday's Daily Mail. She said the BBC:
has decided that the terms AD and BC (Anno Domini, or the Year of Our Lord, and Before Christ) must be replaced by the terms Common Era and Before Common Era.
Either she hadn't read the BBC's statement - or even, as a journalist, spoken to the BBC for clarification on the matter - or she decided it was worth ignoring.
She says:
One of the most sinister aspects of political correctness is the way in which its edicts purport to be in the interests of minority groups.
This is despite the fact that, very often, they are not promulgated at the behest of minorities at all, but by members of the majority who want to destroy their own culture and who use minorities to camouflage their true intentions.
The latest manifestation stars once again that all-time world champion of political correctness, the BBC.
But then she adds:
It so happens, however, that along with many other Jewish people I sometimes use CE and BCE since the terms BC and AD are not appropriate to me.
Do as she says, not as she does. If the abbreviations are not 'appropriate' to her, why should they be 'appropriate' to everyone who works at the BBC? Phillips also refers to the BBC's 'edict' on this matter but the 'edict' is, as the BBC has made clear, 'use whichever terms you want'.
She then points to some examples of BCE/CE being used - not ones she has found through any research, but ones highlighted by the Mail on Sunday:
the terms CE and BCE are now increasingly finding their way onto news bulletins and on programmes such as University Challenge or Melvyn Bragg’s Radio Four show In Our Time.
Thursday's edition of In Our Time is already being trailed on the BBC website:
Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the Etruscan civilisation.
Around 800 BC a sophisticated civilisation began to emerge in the area of Italy now known as Tuscany.
Phillips wider argument is that language is being 'hijacked' and so:
debate becomes impossible...words...have come to mean the precise opposite of what they really do mean.
But what about the BBC's words? How can a debate be possible on this topic when the Mail on Sunday, Delingpole, Mullen and Phillips refuse to take on board what the BBC has said and what it actually does? How does:
Whilst the BBC uses BC and AD like most people as standard terminology it is also possible for individuals to use different terminology if they wish to
become, to Phillips:
AD and BC...must be replaced by the terms Common Era and Before Common Era.
Words have indeed come to mean the precise opposite.
(Moreover, Phillips uses her column to claim 'Christmas has been renamed in various places 'Winterval'' despite the fact it hasn't been renamed Winterval in any place.)
And Phillips wasn't the only one in today's papers taking the same line. In the Telegraph, Mayor of London Boris Johnson said:
...it now turns out that some BBC committee or hierarch has decided that this nativity – notional or otherwise – can no longer be referred to by our state-funded broadcaster...
You know what, I just don't think this is good enough. This decision by the BBC is not only puerile and absurd. It is also deeply anti-democratic...
Johnson appears to believe in the myth of some centrally-issued edict that is banning the use of BC/AD at the BBC. But what he's actually calling 'deeply anti-democratic' is a position that says 'individuals can do what they wish'. Indeed, Martin Robbins argues that it is the Mail's view - 'It's not enough that the BBC allows staff to use AD, they must use it, always' - that is the more problematic.
As well as the columns by Johnson and Phillips, there have been further 'news' articles in today's papers. The Express' headline - 'Atheist' BBC drops year of Our Lord' - was very similar to the Mail on Sunday's. The article stated:
Bosses advised staff to replace Anno Domini – the Year Of Our Lord – and Before Christ with terms Common Era and Before Common Era.
The Mail and Telegraph both quoted BBC presenters who maintain they will be sticking to BC/AD yet both papers still refer to a 'diktat' and 'guidance' that the terms are 'barred'. The Mail's article puts the BBC's denial earlier in the story than the Mail on Sunday managed, yet it still carries the headline: Andrew Marr says he will ignore BBC diktat to stop use of BC and AD.
At the time of writing, there are 900 comments on Johnson's article, over 100 on Phillips' and over 1,500 on the original Mail on Sunday story. The vast majority are attacking the BBC for some 'edict' that they haven't, actually, issued. The story has been repeated on countless blogs, websites and forums and been linked to by outraged people on Twitter.
The BBC's position - BC/AD is standard, but people can use whichever they want - has generally been forgotten or ignored.
To quote Phillips again:
The result of this hijacking of the language is that debate becomes impossible because words like...truth and many more have come to mean the precise opposite of what they really do mean.
(Hat-tips to Mark Burnley, Jem Stone and Martin Robbins)
Posts
I don't know how you find the strength to keep this blog going. The complete bone-headed alienation of logic displayed by the tabloids (and, indeed, people who should know better) just makes me want to bash my head repeatedly against a brick wall.
ReplyDeleteThanks all the same though!
Brilliant article as always, comprehensively rips the whole thing apart quite wonderfully. I particularly enjoyed Phillips saying that as a Jew she used the terms herself, but obviously still fervently objects to the BBC doing so, just because she can, and presumably also because she realises the story is total bullshit.
ReplyDeleteStalin and Pol Pot actually differed a great deal in their attitude to the past.
ReplyDeleteI think this is further evidence for the theory that tabloid myth-making is not just about cultivating a set of right-wing tropes dispersed amongst the general population, but also about providing "jobs for the boys" - look at all them columnists responding to a trivial non-story! This happens with science too. One way is that they misrepresent scientific research, then have their columnists chime in over the week, pointing at how loony and out of touch those "boffins" are. That's the point when they might then start ranting about secularism or some other trope. Another way is to claim that "science" has proven something inflammatory about society, and then have them comment on that over the week.
ReplyDeleteA Dutch friend of mine asked me about this story yesterday. it's being reported in the 'quality' papers over there.A Dutch friend of mine asked me about this story yesterday. it's being reported in the 'quality' papers over there.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the Daily Mail should look a little closer to home:
ReplyDelete"...that the wall that has been revealed is that which was built by King Solomon in Jerusalem in the latter part of the 10th century BCE."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1252936/Archaeologist-discovers-significant-Jerusalem-city-wall-10th-century-BC.html
Great article. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteGosh all that work and you missed the start of the whole thing...
ReplyDeleteA better job was done by the guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/26/1
Maybe there should be a 'tabloid-watch watch blog'...
Have the BBC banned it? Not by official edict from the top, but they allow their web editors do so.
What offends more people using AD/BC or deliberately not using them?
Is anyone offended by AD/BC ? Not that I have heard of. Is anyone offended by the BBC allowing them to be removed from parts of its website? Yes.
But the people who are offended don't matter to the BBC - they are just british public plebs.
@pperrin - well done for keeping on keeping on with this nonsense. You ask 'Is anyone offended by AD/BC?' Well, even Melanie Phillips said that they were not appropriate for her to use, (from a Jewish perspective I presume). Therefore there must be many people in similar positions who do not wish to use BC/AD. So, do they offend people? Probably not. But does it offend people to be forced to use them? Undoubtably.
ReplyDelete^^^Trust a UKIPer to a) not read the article they are commenting on (Tabloid Watch mentions the "Reality Check" in the 3rd paragraph) and b) miss the point completely.
ReplyDeleteRead the Guardian article, and its a pale version of this one.
ReplyDeleteI've heard 'Common Era' and BCE used on Radio 4 plenty of times, in context, very effectively.
BC and AD are only of any use in reference to the Western Julian/Gregorian calendar, since they are the ones that use the (approximate) year of Jesus's birth as a reference point.
It happens to be a convenient reference in time, and CE and BCE are references to the same thing.
The problem of course, is that some people spend their lives looking for things to offend them, and some newspapers feed on that.
"Your friendly Daily Mail/Express/Sun/Star - guaranteed to never knowingly contain any news you'll disagree with!"
If the good Rev Dr Peter Mullen could send me a link to where the BBC "has declared itself as wanting to obliterate Christianity from public life", I'd be much obliged.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I'm well aware that this debate is not to do with whether CE/BCE is better than AD/BC: it's to do with the fact that the Mail and several other newspapers and public figures have accused the BBC of some fascist assault on Christians, and it's more than clear from all the evidence that this accusation is completely false. The posts on the matter here, at 5CC and at The Media Blog have all been fantastic.
ReplyDelete(I'm also interested by the hints they've made about the BBC trying to force us into some vanilla godless PC Eurozone hell - I saw this story on the front page of the Mail on my grandparents' coffee table on Sunday. My grandparents are both Spanish Catholics. They return to Spain several times a year for religious occasions because such events are celebrated to a much greater extent over there. I'm not sure where this idea of a secular Europe comes from.)
Secondly, in the interests of disclosure, I'm an atheist. I don't care in the slightest whether AD/BC or CE/BCE are used and I doubt I'm the only person who feels that way, atheist or otherwise. However, if people are going to make such a song and dance about attacks on Christianity and so on, I would point out that the exact year of Christ's birth is open to debate and many seem to agree that it was not 2011 years ago - the general consensus I have heard is that it's about four years out (whether early or late, I can't remember). If this could be conclusively proven, would we change our calendars to show the year 2015? I doubt it. The reason is because the calendar system we use is based on common and historic practice (hence "common era"), with a loose tether to Christ's actual birth, and if Christians are so upset about the change in reference, I'm not sure why they're not complaining about the use of 2011 AD when it might well be 2015 years since Jesus was born - or, for that matter, about the fact that New Year's does not coincide with Christmas (another disputed date), which would also have an impact on the accuracy of referring to a certain date as being a number of years since Jesus' birth. Wouldn't they actually find it less offensive to remove possibly inaccurate information about their religious icon from common speech, in the same way that Muslims don't draw pictures of Mohammed for the reason that they don't know what he looks like and therefore view any attempt to portray him as sacrilegious?
Ah, but Mad Mel prefixed the BC/Ad nonsense with the word "apparently". This is shorthand for "I am too lazy to check the facts of a story which happens to fit my own agenda even if it IS a load of old toot".
ReplyDeleteInteresting....the commenter above who is a member of the United Kingdom Independence Party considers that the British public will be offended if our dating system is changed from a foreign language, no longer spoken, into English.
ReplyDeleteIn my Daily Mail column yesterday, I wrote:
ReplyDelete'The latest manifestation stars once again that all-time world champion of political correctness, the BBC. Apparently, it has decided that the terms AD and BC (Anno Domini, or the Year of Our Lord, and Before Christ) must be replaced by the terms Common Era and Before Common Era.
'Actually, this edict seems to have been laid down merely by some obscure tributary of the BBC website rather than from on high.
'Nevertheless, the terms CE and BCE are now increasingly finding their way onto news bulletins and on programmes such as University Challenge or Melvyn Bragg’s Radio Four show In Our Time.'
By deliberately omitting the second of these paragraphs, you have given the misleading impression that I said the BBC had laid down a blanket edict when I expressly observed that this was not so. Moreover, by associating me in this post with remarks published elsewhere about this issue you have further falsely implied that I suggested the BBC had banned the use of the terms BC and AD.
Will you now acknowledge your bad journalism and correct your mnisrepresentation of what I wrote?
Gotta say thi: I just don't give a shit. Only tards and people looking for a laugh or a pair of tits to oggle go on the Mail's website or read the paper version, and as for whether the BBC uses/doesn't use BC/AD- who honestly, truly cares? Christianity will still march on (deadenlingly boring though it is- who the hell goes to church these days anyway?!) and the Muslim folks (with a religion just as boring as Christianity) will still remain in the minority.
ReplyDeleteIts tabloid rubbish and perhaps not even worthy of responding to, but I really wish the BBC would just grow a pair and DEFEND ITSELF! Fair enough they issued a statement but it is quite clear that this is either being ignored or buried away, so why doesnt the BBC spend a few minutes posting a rebuttal of all this nonsense on its news website? The right wing gutter press are out to destroy the BBC through lies - why wont the BBC provide the truth to the public itself instead of burying its head in the sand and allowing its reputation to be damaged by those who want it destroyed?
ReplyDeleteMy grandparents are both Spanish Catholics. They return to Spain several times a year for religious occasions because such events are celebrated to a much greater extent over there. I'm not sure where this idea of a secular Europe comes from.
ReplyDeleteMight be worth noting (a resident of Spain writes) that church attendance in Spain runs at, from memory, about 14% of the population. Spain is not in fact such a religious country: it just has a particularly powerful Church.
In response to Mad Mel's comment above, the missing' 2nd paragraph refers to an 'edict' that doesn't even exist!
ReplyDelete"Actually, this edict seems to have been laid down merely by some obscure tributary of the BBC website rather than from on high."
ReplyDelete"By deliberately omitting the second of these paragraphs, you have given the misleading impression that I said the BBC had laid down a blanket edict"
Mel, there's been no edict at all, except in the imaginations of twisted writers in repulsive publications. We must assume that you are either utterly incompetent or extremely dishonest.
Which is it Ms Phillips? We would appreciate clarification.
Hi Melanie Phillips (if it is indeed you)
ReplyDeleteInstead of firstly demanding others correct what you perceive to be inaccuracies in their journalism, could you please answer these points (I know you wont bother because clearly I'm a nobody and you don't like to be challenged but what the hell)
1) You say "Apparently, [The BBC] has decided that the terms AD and BC... must be replaced by the terms Common Era and Before Common Era."
Did you do any research yourself to find out more about this (yunno, like a proper journalist would) or did you simply read the article from the previous days Mail on Sunday and take that as the truth?
2) You say "Actually this edict seems to have been laid down merely by some obscure tributary of the BBC website rather than from on high."
Could you tell me more about this "edict"? Two definitions of an edict are "A decree or proclamation issued by an authority and having the force of law" or "A formal pronouncement or command". Presumably therefore, such an 'edict' would be written in the BBC editorial guidelines available to all producers. Could you please provide a link to such an 'edict' to back up your claims and provide credence to this, because that paragraph has been written as a statement of fact. Facts require evidence.
3) As stated by another commenter above, the Daily Mail has a story that states "...that the wall that has been revealed is that which was built by King Solomon in Jerusalem in the latter part of the 10th century BCE."
Could you tell us why the reporter would have written this? Was it an edict given by your editor? Was it the reporters personal choice?
4) Finally, how do you square the BBC statement of "The BBC has not issued editorial guidance on the date systems. Both AD and BC, and CE and BCE are widely accepted date systems and the decision on which term to use lies with individual production and editorial teams." with the article in the Mail on Sunday on which you base your comment piece? Presumably since the two sides of the story are contradictory someone is lying. Who is it? The BBC or The Mail on Sunday? If the BBC is lying then I once again ask you to provide evidence of any editorial "edict" or plot to gradually remove BC/AD from BBC broadcasts.
After all, you're the journalist/columnist/talking head on no doubt a nice fat salary. I doubt you will find any of these requests particularly taxing to answer assuming you have evidence to answer them with...
Melanie: to my eyes the first and second paragraphs above are contradictory, leaping as they do from "it (the BBC) has decided that the terms...must be replaced" to "seems to have been laid down by some obscure tributary".
ReplyDeleteNot sure therefore that you should be accusing others of "bad journalism".
Perhaps Melanie might also enquire about the Daily Mail article from today which uses BCE. I notice comments are closed on said article. Why is that exactly Melanie? Surely you could ask your editor to explain why he hates Jesus so much. Perhaps you could write a column on the subject of media distortion, rabble-rousing and hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to it.
Only to respond to the above poster: "... church attendance in Spain runs at, from memory, about 14% of the population. Spain is not in fact such a religious country: it just has a particularly powerful Church." My point is not that Spain itself is particularly religious; rather it is that my grandparents are, and they find that Spain is a perfectly good place to celebrate their religion - so I don't know why the Mail have synonymised Europe with the secular agenda. I've certainly never seen Europe in that way. Just my two cents.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this isn't nearly as interesting as the purported presence (and typos) of Ms "the national curriculum is brainwashing children into homosexuality" Phillips!
Phillips does make a valid point in her comment, though - and I say this as someone who disagrees with more or less everything else she's ever written, before anyone accuses me of being a Mailite infiltrator or anything.
ReplyDeleteThe omitted paragraph does make it clear that she is aware there was no BBC-wide ban (picking at the semantics of the word "edict" is just dodging the point) and by omitting that paragraph you are misrepresenting her column and lumping her in with those misinformed commentators and publications that have claimed there was a blanket ban. I certainly believe that the conclusions she reaches are bollocks but her familiarity with the facts at least can't be faulted in this instance.
I only say this because I do greatly enjoy this blog and to distort someone's views using the very tactics of the papers you criticise does undermine it somewhat. Even if it was an unintentional omission I think at least a clarifying footnote would be in order.
@Hannah - well, to the Mail, Europe is synonymous with the EU, and since the EU is a secular organisation (it would obviously be unworkable otherwise) and in Mail world any organisation that is not explicitly in-your-face Christian is obviously out to impose compulsory atheism or Islam (or sometimes both! all the fun of mandatory hijabs and halal chicken without any of that pesky belief in Allah getting in the way) it naturally follows that "Europe" is out to undermine Christianity.
ReplyDelete(It can probably be assumed that no Mail journalist or website commentor, despite all presuming to be experts on the EU and why it's full of awful bastards, has ever laid eyes on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which states: "The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.")
Melanie referring to this blog as Bad journalism clearly shows that she has no idea what a journalist actually is or what they do. She may claim that she is a journalist because she writes words in a newspaper and gets paid money for it, however she is as far away from being a Journalist as my duvet is. At least my duvet doesn't spread malicious lies in a national newspaper however, so I value it's opinion more.
ReplyDeleteThe owner of this blog isn't claiming to be a journalist however they do far more professional work than anyone at the Mail or indeed any other tabloid paper could ever do. It speaks volumes when people who claim to be journalists attack a website which uses real journalistic processes to expose how wrong and dangerous these fake journalists really are. This blog and many others like it use practices such as research and fact checking. Such practices are totally alien to journalists at the Mail who are just out to whip up a bit of fury over nothing and then return to their caves with money spilling from their pockets.
This is an arseingly pedantic point, by the way, but if Rev Mullan actually said what he's quoted as saying above, he knows fuck all about Latin. Anno Domini means "in the year of Our Lord", not "the years of Our Lord".
ReplyDeleteWhen I studied Divinity 20 years ago, most of the lecturers used BCE/CE. I'm not sure why, but I doubt they were trying to spread secularism...
ReplyDeletePerhaps someone should point out to the Mail that many scientists also use BP (Before Present). Obviously this is purely due to their inherently anti-Christian ways rather than because it is a useful convention when using radiocarbon dating and other modern dating methods
ReplyDelete"Apparently". "Seems". Opinion presented as fact. Again. I think this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thepoke.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/mail-tube-map-medium-large.png
needs updating.
@Melanie Phillips: your argument is somewhat weakended by the fact that your article was titled "Our language is being hijacked by the Left to muzzle rational debate". Surely the title should have been "Our language, wait, no, some BBC writers are using language at personal discretion with respect to using two different widely accepted terms to describe things, specifically, dates." That is, if you paper-thin argument wanted to stand up. Which it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteIt may be making its way onto the show but obviously very slowly because on Monday's University Challenge Paxman used the term BC in a question.
ReplyDeleteThis is all rather silly, isn't it?
"The omitted paragraph does make it clear that she is aware there was no BBC-wide ban"
ReplyDeleteThere was no ban whatsoever. Yet Mel states
"Actually, this edict seems to have been laid down merely by some obscure tributary of the BBC website rather than from on high."
Your anonymous attempt at whitewashing the content of her article doesn't stop Ms Phillips being either incompetent or a liar. Which obscure tributary? What edict?
If she means whoever wrote the dialogue on one programme, then surely she's talking about the decision of possibly one person. Much like BCE appeared in the Mail yesterday. I must therefore assume that some obscure tributary of the Daily Mail has made the same decision. And indeed, if we are to extrapolate, that Melanie's own behaviour reflects incompetence and or dishonesty of the whole "newspaper".
This is of course well known to most of us, but something that you seem unable to deal with.
I don't expect a reply from Phillips or some anonymous person. That would involve taking some sort of responsibility for your alleged journalism.
@Chris Marshall
ReplyDeleteI'm not the anonymous person above, but the 'obscure tributary' referred to is BBC Religion. They have a FAQ answer explaining why they use BCE/CE BUT they use BC/AD on all their pages about Christianity! As you say: no edict!
@Chris Marshall - She may well have been mistaken in claiming there was any kind of "edict" on any level (as far as I'm aware it was one single web editor's rarely-followed recommendation at the very most, but you know how a "recommendation" becomes a "ban" or an "edict" or - if European - a "diktat" in the hands of the right-wing press), and in my opinion she is certainly mistaken in her analysis of its significance, but the point is this post implies she made a much larger factual error (that it was BBC-wide and enforced from the top) than she actually did. If you said Vienna was in Germany you'd be wrong, and if you said it was on Jupiter you'd be wrong too, but the two levels of wrongness are not equal.
ReplyDeleteBut in any case you seem to have missed the point of my comment - I am not defending either Phillips or the Mail, I personally consider the Mail to be one of the worst things about the UK and Phillips to be one of the worst things about the Mail, but I simply don't want to see this blog either resorting to cheap tactics like that (if it was intentional) or making silly mistakes (if it wasn't) which only detract from the good work it usually does.
Anon, if, as you claim, Phillips was actually correcting the other writers who went along with meme, then why didn't he name names? Why didn't she say "This paper, the Daily Mail, said X, but actually that's not true. Here's what's true blah blah blah"? Instead she says "apparently", not mentioning who said it, completing distorting agency - as if it was just some random rumour she picked up on Twitter.
ReplyDeleteWhile we are on the subject, is it not time that someone sorted out the days of the week. Few people in England believe in the Scandinavian gods, yet we still have days of the week named after them.Wodensday!? (Wednesday). Thorsday!? (Thursday). Days of the week should optionally be redesignated by the BBC as Firstday, Seconday etc. And incidentally, I understand that Christ is now believed to have been born in 4 BC, so where does that leave AD and BC?
ReplyDeleteI wish the Mail had been around when we switched from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar. Their headline would probably have screamed something about British traditions being banned in order to avoid giving offence to Catholics!
ReplyDelete