Why does the Daily Mail hate Cymraeg – and by implication the speakers of that language so much?
It was one of those Anglophone media outlets that blew its top earlier this week over the decision by a second Welsh national park authority to call the national park solely by its Welsh name – a name for prominent local topographical features that reaches back over a millennium (posts passim).
Yesterday it discovered and did a hatchet job on a petition currently gathering signatures on the Senedd Cymru website calling for the exclusive use of Welsh place names,
To quote the same places named by the Mail, your ‘umble scribe sees no problem at all in Caerdydd, Abertawe, Casnewydd and Wrecsam being referred to by their names in the local vernacular, which have existed for centuries. He also believes that if the Mail is against something, what is being ranted about is inevitably worthwhile.
The Mail’s anti-Welsh piece was also boosted by Andrew RT Davies, leader of the Welsh Conservatives, who used it as a means of attacking what he called extreme policies likely to be introduced by a future Labour government, no doubt winning approval from his colonial masters at CCHQ in London SW1.
Since the Mail’s intercession the petition, which was languishing with a signature count of some 250, has now amassed over 300.
Da iawn! 😀
Update 23/04: Following coverage in the Welsh media of the Mail’s bigotry, the number of signatories this evening is now approaching 700, well above the threshold for its consideration by the Senedd’s petitions committee, if somewhat short of the 10,000 needed for a debate in the chamber.
Yesterday the news was announced that, following the recent decision by its fellow national park authority in North Wales, the one covering a large swathe of south Wales would henceforth be called the Bannau Brycheiniog National Park in English.
There was also a video to accompany the name change.
However, the change has not gone down well, particularly in the rabid right-wing monoglot English press, as shown by the image below from yesterday’s Daily Mail website.
Snowflakes!
Not forgetting to add all their typical smears, they’re touchy souls at the Mail, aren’t they? Nevertheless, like all good Anglophone monoglots, they cannot even get the pronunciation of Bannau Brycheiniog right. In Brycheiniog, the ch is pronounced as in the Scottish loch, not like an English ck as written in the Mail.
Furthermore a ‘columnist‘ at The Independent also did not want to be excluded from being outraged and mocking the Welsh language, as Nation Cymru reports.
Nor has the change met with universal approval in Wales itself.
To being with, Reach plc’s Cardiff-based Wales Online title adopted a provocative stance with its headline at the top of yesterday’s home page (clickbait for a largely monoglot Anglophone readership not known for voicing its support for either Cymraeg or Cymdeithas yr Iaith? Ed.).
However, the all-Wales whinging trophy has to go to the Welsh Conservatives, those faithful servants of their colonial masters in London SW1, with the charge being headed by their Senedd and Welsh ‘leader‘, one Andrew RT Davies, who planted the Welsh Tories firmly in the Anglophone camp.
This earned him plenty of derision, particularly from his fellow Welsh, of which the following is typical.
If Mr Davies doesn’t like his compatriots using their own language and celebrating their own heritage (the hills were known as the Bannau Brycheiniog long before the monoglots arrived in force), perhaps he ought to relinquish his seat in the Senedd Cymru and find a nice safe Tory constituency in the English Conservative heartlands.
As such it tends to repeat and amplify the dog-whistle racism and xenophobia embodied in the hostile environment that has characterised its attitude to non-British people, particularly if they are not white, since the Home Secretary was one Theresa May, who later went on to do bad prime minister impressions in the Westminster Palace of Varieties.
The post of Home Secretary is currently occupied by one Sue-Ellen Cassiana “Suella” Braverman, a woman of no discernible talent other than being incompetent and nasty.
Braverman is currently on her second term of office as Home Secretary, having been initially appointed as such under the premiership of one Elizabeth Mary Truss on 6 September 2022. However, like her boss, Braverman did not last long in post, resigning because she had made an “honest mistake” (a likely story. Ed.) by sharing an official document from her personal email address with a colleague in Parliament, an action which breached the Ministerial Code.
On 25 October, Braverman was re-appointed as the home secretary by the prime minister Rishi Sunak, in direct contradiction of his promise of “integrity, professionalism and accountability”. Does someone who broke the Ministerial Code have any integrity or professionalism?
Yesterday, the Home Office’s Twitter account finally admitted how dangerous the Home Secretary was, calling her “one of the greatest injustices in modern Britain” and calling for her end.
It has often been remarked that Britain and the USA are two countries divided by a common language.
However, let’s not forget that the spread of English around the world resulted in the development of different varieties of English around the world, all with varying degrees of (in)comprehensibility.
A prime example of something beyond the comprehension of your ‘umble scribe turned up this morning in his social media feed. It contains a fine example of some prime official gibberish from the state authorities of New South Wales in Australia.
If you, dear reader, can make any sense of it, please feel free to use the comment form below to provide a translation into British English; furthermore, please feel free to add any punctuation which you deem will aid comprehension as the original notice has none. 😀
On Tuesday 9th March, the Administrative Court in Bastia overturned those articles of the rules of procedure of the Corsican Assembly and the Corsican Executive Council that provide for debates to be held in both Corsican and French, Corse Matin reports. The Court regards these provisions as infringing Article 2 of the French constitution, according to which “the language of the Republic is French“.
Former prefect of Corsica Pascal Lelarge, had lodged an appeal in this matter, requesting withdrawal of the decisions adopting these two rules of procedure, in view of the fact that references to the notion of the Corsican people and the Corsican language as a possible working language for the Corsican assembly, undermine to the French constitution.
This decision is tantamount to depriving the elected representatives of Corsica of the right to speak their language during debates within the Assembly of Corsica, the Executive Council of Corsica and acts of public life. Accepting this situation is unthinkable for us.
Even regardless of the appeal to be lodged against this judgement, this court decision and its reasoning only confirm the absolute necessity of a constitutional revision, in particular to guarantee the Corsican language the status of joint officiality, an essential condition for its survival and development.
With the rules of procedure of the Corsican Assembly having been adopted unanimously, at the next session we will propose that all groups adopt a common position in the face of the legal and political situation created by the judgment of the Administrative Court in Bastia, which is subject to an appeal.
This change will ensure that the data by the sites collected will stay within the EU and, as the Czech administration will be using its own instance of Matomo, it will retain full control of the records.
The change was triggered by an open letter sent by the Czech the digital freedom watchdog luridicum Remedium after it noticed the Czech state vaccination system website was using Google Analytics during the COVID-19 crisis. The Czech Data Protection Authority and public sector strategic partner NAKIT then pursued the matter and replaced Google Analytics with Matomo on Czechia’s Ministry of Health website. This move later led to further action and the country will continue following this trend on public sector websites.
Previously named Piwik, Matomo has been in development since 2007 and is presently deployed on 1.4 million websites, including those of NASA, the European Commission, the United Nations and Amnesty International.
the first of March is Saint David’s Day and Sheffield City Council decided to mark the Welsh patron saint’s day in its own inimitable way, as reported by Nation Cymru, by flying the wrong flag from the Town Hall.
However, by early afternoon the Scottish Saltire had been replaced above the Town Hall with the flag of St David – a yellow cross on a black background.
The council also put out a statement declaring: “We are really sorry that the incorrect flag was flown above the Town Hall today. As soon as we knew, we rectified this immediately. We want to wish all who celebrate a Happy St David’s Day.”
Nevertheless, this is not the first time this particular local authority has been guilty of seeing all Celts as alike. In 2019, the Council celebrated St Patrick’s Day by flying Y Ddraig Goch from the Town Hall, as the BBC reported at the time, as well as being posted on social media
EU data protection authorities have negotiated a contract for the use of Nextcloud and LibreOffice Online in EU institutions. They are now testing the solutions, German IT news heise reports.
Data protection-friendly alternatives
It was announced last Wednesday that the European Data Protection Supervisor Wojciech Wiewiórowski and his team have begun testing both solutions this month. In coming months they want to examine “how these can tools support EU day-to-day work“. This pilot phase is part of a larger IT reflection process that the EDPS already started last year aimed at encouraging EUIs to consider alternatives to large-scale service providers to ensure better compliance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.
By procuring the Open Source Software from one single entity in the EU, the use of sub-processors is avoided. In doing so, the EDPS avoids data transfers to non-EU countries such as the USA and allows for more effective control over the processing of personal data.
According to Mr Wiewiórowski, “Open Source Software offers data protection-friendly alternatives to commonly used large-scale cloud service providers that often imply the transfer of individuals’ personal data to non-EU countries. Solutions like this may therefore minimise reliance on monopoly providers and detrimental vendor lock-in. By negotiating a contract with an EU-based provider of cloud services, the EDPS is delivering on its commitments, as set out in its 2020-2024 Strategy, to support EUIs in leading by example to safeguard digital rights and process data responsibly“.
Microsoft Office in the sights
Mr Wiewiórowski has already examined the contracts which EU institutions have with Microsoft and reached the conclusion in 2020 that the data processing purposes when using Windows or Microsoft Office had been defined far too openly. Processing contractors were not adequately audited and data could be transferred too easily by EU institutions to countries outside the Union. At the time, he demanded that Microsoft should only retain user information within the EU. The roles of all those involved with all their rights and obligations must be clearly regulated. Furthermore, Users should look around for alternatives that “enable higher data protection standards“.
The EDPS started further investigations into the use of Microsoft and Amazon cloud services by EU institutions. These entailed the use Microsoft Office 365 by the EU Commission. According to Wiewiórowski many contracts were concluded prior to the “Schrems II Judgment” and had to be examined in the light of the European Court of Justice case law.
Thérèse Coffey, the alleged Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has advised consumers to opt for turnips as tomato and cucumber supplies dwindle, owing to shortages.
This instantly reminds your correspondent of that phrase attributed to Marie Antoinette, supposedly uttered by her during the French Revolution: “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche“, usually translated into English as “Let them eat cake“.
However, there is no there is absolutely no historical evidence that Marie-Antoinette ever said “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” or anything like it, although folklore scholars have found similar tales in other parts of the world.
Anyway, back to Coffey, a minister devoid of humanity and compassion, but richly endowed with incompetence, callousness and that all-important can’t-do attitude.
Coffey has stated that shortages of salad and other vegetables in UK supermarkets could last up to a month. However, critics have accused the government of bringing the problem on itself by failing to support local growers and through Brexit policies.
Speaking in the House of Commons, Coffey told MPs British consumers should “cherish” home-grown produce, whilst castigating the latter for wanting “a year-round choice“.
In her own words:
“It’s important to make sure that we cherish the specialisms that we have in this country. A lot of people would be eating turnips right now rather than thinking necessarily about aspects of lettuce and tomatoes and similar.”
Finally, so that Coffey can indulge in ‘cherished‘ home-grown produce, your ‘umble scribe will perform a public duty by providing a link – should the alleged Secretary of State happen to be reading this post, to a recipe for cream of potato and turnip soup.
Enjoy! 😉
Update 25/02/23. One consequence of Ms Coffey’s advocacy of “cherishing” this humble root vegetable is that supermarkets are reported as running of turnips. Your correspondent could find none at his local Lidl yesterday, although swedes (the Swedish turnip) are plentiful.
As a final postscript, your ‘umble scribe notes from The Guardian today that its political sketch writer John Crace has written:
Four years ago I tweeted, “Let them eat turnips”. It was meant to be a joke about Brexit. Now it’s government policy. Satire comes at you fast these days.
Following the announcement anti-trust action by the United States Department of Justice along with the Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia against Google, Meta (owners of Facebook and Instagram), Microsoft and Twitter have all made statements seeking to defend their actions.
In their legal opinions, the big US tech giants, including Microsoft, Meta and Twitter, are warning the Supreme Court against amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). This would enable actions against content recommendation algorithms, French IT news site Le Monde Informatique reports.
One week after Google’s filing of a defence statement with the US Supreme Court warning that amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) “would upend the internet“, several companies including Twitter, Meta and Microsoft, have filed their own legal opinions. They support Google’s argument that a restriction of the law could have disastrous consequences for the content editors. By virtue of the 1996 CDA, the companies are shielded from liability for content posted by their users, including comments, criticism and advertising.
US Supreme Court. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons and UpstateNYer
However, the Supreme Court has been asked to examine whether Section 230 was still pertinent and appropriate, given that it was promulgated before the internet became part of everyday life. The law was subject to a minute before the suit filed by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23 year-pld US citizen killed in Paris during the 13th November 2015 terrorist attacks claimed by ISIS. The Gonzalez family asserts that the algorithms should be regarded as editorial content not covered by the immunity from liability granted by Section 230 and thus Google’s YouTube subsidiary has violated the US Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) when its algorithms have recommended ISIS-linked content to users. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the case on 21st February next.
Criticisms of the protections of Section 230 for websites
Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have criticised the protections provided for by the law. The Republicans believe that those in respect of liability make websites take partial decisions regarding content removal, whilst the Democrats would like the same sites to take more responsibility as regards moderation. In a statement President Biden has stated that his administration would support the position that Section 230 protections should not apply to recommendation algorithms. In its petition of 19th January, Microsoft asserts that if the Supreme Court makes amendments to Section 230, it would “strip these digital publishing decisions suit—and it would do so in illogical ways that are inconsistent with how algorithms actually work.“.
The company added that any decision aimed at restricting the law “thereby expose interactive computer services to liability for publishing content to users whenever a plaintiff could craft a theory that sharing the content is somehow harmful“. In its own petition Meta stated that the plaintiffs’ argument is “deeply flawed from a legal point of view”; by interpreting Section 230 as a means of protecting sites from liability for content posted by its users whilst removing protection from content “ignores the way in which the internet works“. The company continued by describing the plaintiffs’ position as “regrettable from a practical point of view” and by stating that a ruling in their favour would ultimately prompt “online services to remove important, provocative and controversial content on matters of general interest“.
Protection from liability essential for website operation according to Twitter
Twitter has said that the current interpretation of Section 230 “ensures that sites such as Twitter and YouTube can work in spite of the unfathomable amount of information they make available and the potential liability that might result from this“. Since Twitter’s acquisition by Elon Musk, the site has been criticised for having reinstated the accounts of people it previously banned, such as disgraced former president Donald Trump or alpha male par excellence and all-round amateur human being Andrew Tate who is currently under investigation in Romania for alleged human trafficking.
However, the review of several other high-profile cases will have to take place before the law is changed. Last week the Supreme Court was set to discuss its jurisdiction in two cases that challenge Texas and Florida laws prohibiting online platforms from removing certain political content. In addition, a Twitter vs. Taamneh case, which has many similarities with the Gonzalez vs. Google case, is due to oral pleadings on 2nd February. In this case Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are accused of having aided and abetted another attack claimed by Islamic State.
On Tuesday 9th March, the Administrative Court in 
Joinup, the EU’s open source news site, ![Tweet reads Dydd Gŵyl Dewi Hapus - Happy St. David's Day!
From [Sheffield City Council]](http://xislblogs.xtreamlab.net/slwoods/wp-content/uploads//sites/23/2023/03/sheffield_dewi_sant.png)
EU data protection authorities have negotiated a contract for the use of 
Following the announcement anti-trust action by the United States Department of Justice along with the Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia against Google, Meta (owners of Facebook and Instagram), Microsoft and Twitter have all made statements seeking to defend their actions.