British grandmother who objected to homosexual march is accused of hate crime
After witnessing a gay pride march, committed Christian Pauline Howe wrote to the council to complain that the event had been allowed to go ahead. But instead of a simple acknowledgement, she received a letter warning her she might be guilty of a hate crime and that the matter had been passed to police. Two officers later turned up at the frightened grandmother’s home and lectured her about her choice of words before telling her she would not be prosecuted.
Mrs Howe, 67, whose husband Peter is understood to be a Baptist minister, yesterday spoke of her shock at the visit and accused police of ‘ wasting resources’ on her case rather than fighting crime. ‘I’ve never been in any kind of trouble before so I was stunned to have two police officers knocking at my door,’ she said. ‘Their presence in my home made me feel threatened. It was a very unpleasant experience. ‘The officers told me that my letter was thought to be an intention of hate but I was expressing views as a Christian.’
Mrs Howe’s case has been taken up by the Christian Institute, which is looking into potential breaches of freedom of speech and religious rights under the Human Rights Act, either by Norwich City Council or Norfolk Police. And homosexual equality pressure group Stonewall has branded the authorities’ response ‘disproportionate’.
Mrs Howe claims she was ‘verbally abused’ while distributing ‘Christian leaflets’ at the march in the centre of Norwich in July. She said someone ‘whispered something in my ear and disappeared’. She fired off a letter to the council describing the march as a ‘public display of indecency’ that was ‘offensive to God’.
She wrote: ‘It is shameful that this small but vociferous lobby should be allowed such a display unwarranted by the minimal number of homosexuals.’ The letter went on to describe homosexuals as ‘sodomites’, said homosexuality had ‘contributed to the downfall of every empire’ and added that ‘gay sex was a major cause of sexually transmitted infections’.
But Mrs Howe told the Sunday Telegraph her comments were an expression of her beliefs, not homophobia. She received a response from the council’s deputy chief executive, Bridget Buttinger, who said it was the local authority’s ‘duty… to eliminate discrimination of all kinds’. She went on: ‘The content of your letter has been assessed as potentially being hate related because of the views you expressed towards people of a certain sexual orientation. ‘Your details and details of the contents of your letter have been recorded as such and passed to the police.’ The two police officers later turned up at her home in Poringland, near Norwich, and informed her the contents of her letter had caused offence.
The incident has echoes of the case of a pensioner couple who were lectured by officers from Lancashire Police on the evils of ‘homophobia’ and ‘hate crimes’ after criticising gay rights in a letter to Wyre Borough Council. Joe Roberts and his wife Helen, both Christians, were later awarded damages.
Christian Institute spokesman Mike Judge said yesterday: ‘People must be free to express their beliefs – yes, even unpopular beliefs – to government bodies without fear of a knock at the door from police. ‘It’s not a crime to be Christian but it increasingly feels like it.’
Stonewall’s chief executive, Ben Summerskill, said: ‘Clearly her views are pretty offensive but nevertheless this [response] is disproportionate.’
Norfolk Police defended their treatment of Mrs Howe, saying: ‘We investigate all alleged hate incidents. In this instance the individual concerned was visited by officers, the comments discussed, and no further action was taken.’
Why won’t men date successful women?
Another British woman realizes that ignoring biology has large costs. I myself have always been incapable of relationships with dumb women and in fact have always felt that a woman cannot be too smart for me. I must note however that my third wife, Jenny, although smart, was/is an “ur” mother who has/had no intellectual or career interests and it is she who blessed me with my only son — JR
When a long relationship broke down a few years ago, my then boyfriend cited my intelligence as a reason that it wouldn’t work. Did he mean I was too stupid? That he couldn’t bear to be with a bimbo who couldn’t hold a sensible discussion? Sadly, it was quite the opposite. He told me that he just didn’t want to go out with a woman who was clever and successful. He said it meant that I could never let any discussion go, or concede a flawed argument; I had to solve problems when they arose, and would argue political points with him. He was an actor in his 50s and said he just wanted ‘an easy life’. In other words, he wanted a bovine woman who wouldn’t challenge him mentally or emotionally – someone who would make him feel superior and boost his self-esteem.
After we separated, I began to wonder how much men feel this need to be dominant in a relationship in order to feel sexually attracted to their mate. If that’s true, then being with a strong, clever, capable woman must be a turn-off.
I became increasingly convinced of this when my next relationship developed the same pattern. I invited my new boyfriend to see me perform my one-woman show on stage in London. Before he walked in to the play, we were tactile and it struck me that I had high hopes for the relationship. An hour later, after watching me on stage and then networking with a group of high-powered theatre people at the aftershow party, he became distant. I knew instantly what the problem was: I was a self-evidently successful woman, he was a jobbing gardener, albeit a clever one. He barely said anything to me, merely mumbled an awkward ‘Well done’ and positioned himself in a corner looking glum with a beer.
After that, I tried to play down my achievements. I even found myself disguising the fact that I’d been to Cambridge, and instead used a throwaway line about being ‘at uni’. Was I wrong to disguise my intelligence in an attempt to make myself more attractive?
A month or so later, he told me that ‘he was just not boyfriend material’. ‘Why not?’ I replied. ‘Because you’ve got two flats,’ he said glumly, ‘and I haven’t even got one.’ Crazy as it may sound, given that I was far from rich, he clearly felt emasculated by what he regarded as my success, and ran away to watch rugby and chat up small feline creatures in the bars of South Wales.
If I go on a date now, I’ve found I avoid talking about my career. I can keep this up for a few dates, which is better than nothing, but I know it won’t last for ever.
In our race to compete with men in the world of work, women have adopted masculine tactics, and also their characteristics. We have become masculine – and men don’t want to date women who think like men. We have lost our femininity, our softness, our ditziness if you like, and in so doing have blocked the ancient signals that reach out to a man’s brain saying: ‘Come and rescue me.’
Modern women have learned to regard men as the competition, in order to get ahead professionally. And while men can accept this female aggression in the workplace, they evidently can’t in relationships. The question this leaves successful women with is whether we should learn to be submissive, socially and domestically, in order to attract a mate. That’s quite a challenge for a generation that has always refused to compromise when it comes to our careers.
Perhaps that’s why all my single girlfriends are all the most successful ones. Caroline runs a record label, Vicky is a photographer, Nadia is a famous actress. All my other ‘less successful’ friends are ensconced in long-term partnerships – all of them have put their careers on hold in order to maintain their relationships.
Much as I hate to say it, I think we successful women are to blame for men’s reluctance to be with us. In the process of becoming Alpha women, we’ve lost our femininity. If we want to be happy in relationships, we have to get that back – even if that means ‘unlearning’ some of the things that have got us to the top. What do we want more – a relationship or a career? Almost all the women I’ve asked that question want a relationship, including me.
Men love vulnerable women. We need to accept that, just because we’ve changed, we can’t expect them to. I don’t think they can. Successful women have reached crisis point and maybe we have to acknowledge we can’t undo our evolutionary changes. Perhaps long-term relationships aren’t a reality for very high achievers, and maybe we have to accept that our careers will have to be a substitute for love, however sad that might be.
Sex trafficking into Britain: No evidence for Harman’s law
Far-Leftist Harriet Harman’s sex trafficking law is based on feeble, fraudulent evidence
Here’s the line. Women are being trafficked into Britain and forced to become sex slaves. We know this because the massive Operation Pentameter, involving 55 police forces, six government departments and various NGOs, led to the arrest of 528 sex traffickers. On the basis of this, Harriet Harman is rightly pushing through a bill to make it illegal to pay for sex with a prostitute controlled by someone else.
Except it’s all lies. As Nick Davies reports, the six-month investigation actually failed to find a single sex trafficker. Ten of the 55 police forces arrested nobody at all. Some 122 of the 528 arrests claimed never happened (they were wrongly recorded, or phantom arrests designed to chase targets). Half (230) were women – suggesting that the Operation was a convenient excuse to harass prostitutes and clock up more arrest figures.
Of the 406 real arrests, 153 had been released weeks before the police announced their ‘success’, 106 without any charge at all, and 47 being cautioned for minor offences. Of the rest, 73 were charged with immigration breaches, 76 convicted on drugs raps, and others died or disappeared.
Only 22 people were finally prosecuted for trafficking, including two women. Seven were acquitted. The net haul from this vast operation was 15 successful prosecutions. Of those, just five men were convicted of importing women and forcing them to work as prostitutes (two of whom were already in custody).
So that’s the ‘huge success’ that allowed Jacqui Smith and now Harriet Harman, to claim that ‘thousands’ of women were being trafficked, and to push a Bill through Parliament. So much for evidence-based policy: I would feel happier if they just said that they found prostitution disgusting and wanted to outlaw it for our own moral good. At least that would be honest. This is simple deception, a fraud on the public.
Sex workers are opposing the new legislation. They know that every time governments ‘get tough’ on prostitution, they are the ones who suffer. The police just have another excuse to go on fishing trips, round up a few girls, and boost their arrest figures so that they get Brownie points and the Chief Constable gets a better bonus. And to prove that they are not ‘controlled’, girls will start working alone, rather than in flats with a maid to look after them, which will make them more vulnerable to abuse and attack. Thanks, Harriet.
Former Archbishop of Canterbury calls for “clear caps on population growth”
Carey is a man of undoubted personal holiness. He won great respect in his time as Cantuar and is one of the few Archbishops of Canterbury in recent times who clearly believes in God
In what will be seen as a very unhelpful intervention to the debate on immigration by many church campaigners for the rights of migrants and refugees, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, has called for a “clear cap” on population growth.
In comments given to today’s News of the World he blamed an “open door policy on immigration” for the rise of the British National Party. He also blamed a failure to “absorb” new communities and called for immigration to take centre stage at the next general election.
Many church campaigners have been deliberately pursing an alternative strategy that would avoid the issue becoming a political football at the time of the election.
Carey told the News of the World: “The cowardly failure of successive governments to address our open borders is the reason the BNP has gained admittance to the political mainstream. “With the latest estimate that our population will rise by nearly 10 million by 2030, politicians are ducking the unpalatable truth: we are now one of the most over-populated countries in the world.” “It is asking a huge amount of the British public to accept an open-door policy on immigration. They have seen a massive influx of newcomers, they have seen their jobs hit, and they feel ignored. There have not been adequate resources to help [the] community adapt to these massive changes.
“Yet it is not only a question of resources but the failure to absorb and integrate new communities. The discredited policy of multiculturalism must be abandoned once and for all. Now a controlled approach to immigration is needed with clear caps set on population growth. If the mainstream parties begin listening to the voters, the BNP can be consigned again to the fringes. “Make no mistake about it, immigration must be a major item on next year’s General Election agenda.”
His comments came as he also urged Christians to unite against the BNP’s claims to be a Christian party defending “Christian Britain.”
Half of the British think creationism should be taught alongside evolution
More than half of all Britons believe that creationism and other theories about the origins of life should be taught alongside evolution in school science lessons, according to a survey published today. The study, published to coincide with a British Council symposium on science education, suggests that three-quarters of adults support the teaching of evolution. But only one in five thinks this should be to the exclusion of theories such as creationism and intelligent design.
There has been growing controversy over the place of alternative theories in schools. Professor Michael Reiss was sacked last year as the Royal Society’s director of education after arguing that creationism and intelligent design should be addressed as a “world view” if they were raised by pupils.
There was further controversy this summer when the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance asked GCSE candidates to compare creationism with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Creationism is the literal interpretation of scripture, while intelligent design holds that living organisms are too complex to be explained by evolution alone.
National Curriculum guidelines stipulate that evolution alone should be taught in science lessons, while creationism may be discussed as part of religious education. But it has been estimated that as many as ten per cent of pupils now come from families that believe in the accounts of divine creation in the Bible or the Koran.
The MORI research, commissioned by the British Council, polled 1,000 adults in Britain among 12,000 in ten countries, including America, Russia and India. British support for teaching other theories alongside evolution was higher, at 54 per cent, than in any of the other countries apart from Argentina and Mexico. But Britain had the lowest proportion (6 per cent) believing that other theories should be taught in preference to evolution.
However, when responses were restricted to those who had heard of Charles Darwin and knew something of his theory of evolution, the proportion supporting lessons on evolution alone rose from 21 per cent to 24 per cent. Among the more informed group, 60 per cent favoured the mixed approach.
Dr Fern Elsdon-Baker, the head of the British Council’s Darwin Now programme, which is running today’s symposium at the National Science Learning Centre on evolution and education, said: “One of the most interesting findings of our survey is that there is evidence the more people understand about evolutionary theory the more enthusiastic they are about it being taught as part of the science curriculum.”
But Dr Baker added that the overall level of support for the teaching of theories other than evolution might reflect a need for a “more sophisticated approach to teaching and communicating how science works as a process, and how it is debated alongside other perspectives”. The council is launching a range of international education resources on the subject for schools, museums and science centres.
Professor Reiss, who is now Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education, in London, is speaking at the symposium. He said he was not surprised that so many people felt that creationism and intelligent design should be taught in schools, even though they were not scientific theories. “In my experience in the UK, the overwhelming majority of science teachers do not want creationism or intelligent design taught as valid scientific alternatives to evolution, but are often comfortable with pupils bringing up such ideas,” Professor Reiss said. “When I was taught science, we were allowed to bring anything up in lessons.
Is salt really the Devil’s ingredient?
More fad “science”: The British Government wants people to reduce their sodium intake, but studies show that this advice should be taken with a pinch of salt
Salt: is your food full of it? That is the question posed by Jenny Eclair in the Food Standards Agency’s recent TV ad for its latest salt awareness campaign. Salt, we are told, pervades every aspect of our diet, from the bowl of cereal we had at breakfast, to the sandwich we ate at lunchtime to the takeaway curry we’re planning tonight.
Too much of the white stuff will raise blood pressure and increase the likelihood of heart disease and strokes. Like its evil twin, saturated fat, it seems logical that our goal should be to cut down on it, but now a growing number of experts claim that salt is not the devil’s ingredient we have been lead to believe it.
This month researchers from the department of nutrition at the University of California found compelling evidence that it may even be difficult to consume too much salt. Professor David McCarron measured salt losses in the urine of almost 20,000 people in 33 countries worldwide and his findings indicated that the complex interplay between our brains and organs naturally regulates salt intake. Reporting in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, Professor McCarron said: “It is unrealistic to attempt to regulate sodium consumption through public policy when it appears that our bodies naturally dictate how much sodium we consume to maintain a physiologically set normal range.”
What we do know from other research is that eating less salt will lower blood pressure and cardiovascular risk in people with existing hypertension, but critics argue that for the rest of the population the advice on salt consumption should be taken with, well, a pinch of salt.
While some studies show that people who reduce their daily intake by 1g-2g find that their blood pressure falls, others reveal that huge swings in salt consumption have little effect, with a few showing that blood pressure actually rises.
Among those now questioning the demonisation of our favourite seasoning is Catherine Collins, chief dietician at St George’s Hospital in London, who believes the current pressure to restrict salt in the diet as much as possible is unnecessary and potentially risky. “The issue has been blown out of proportion,” Collins says. “Salt reduction is very important for people who already have raised blood pressure, but for most people who don’t have hypertension, there is no real benefit to be had from making huge efforts to cut down. It is certainly is not the dietary outcast it is portrayed to be.”
This a view is shared by Michael Alderman, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York and a past president of the International Society of Hypertension, who has spent years researching the effects of salt on health. “Only one rigorous, randomised clinical trial on salt intake has been reported so far,” Alderman says. “As it turned out, the group that adhered to a lower sodium diet actually suffered significantly more cardiovascular deaths and hospitalisations than did the one assigned to the higher sodium diet.”
Salt — sodium chloride — is an element essential for health. Every cell in the body needs sodium to function — it is required to regulate fluid balance and for nerves and muscles, such as those in the heart, to function well. Too little salt can cause mental confusion, an inability to concentrate and, in extreme cases, the potentially fatal condition hyponatraemia, which leads to body salts becoming dangerously diluted and the brain swelling beyond the skull’s capacity.
Not that salt depletion is a risk for the average Briton. Although intake has fallen as food manufacturers have begun to add less salt to food, the latest figures from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) show that the average person still consumes 8.6g of salt a day — that’s 0.9g less than in 2000-01, but, not low enough for the FSA. Its long-term goal is to have everybody cut salt to 6g a day.
In theory, this will prevent strokes and heart attacks by lowering blood pressure. What divides experts is whether mass salt avoidance will make much of a difference to statistics on cardiovascular health. Alderman says that, to date, most of the studies on salt-lowering have been observational, in which the diet habits of different groups are analysed to find any correlation between salt and heart health. Many of them have produced mixed results.
In research conducted at Loyola University in Chicago earlier this year, for instance, Dr Paul Whelton, the president of the university’s health department, followed nearly 3,000 patients for 10-15 years to find out whether the salt they ate had an impact on blood-pressure readings.
After measuring the amount of salt in the urine of his subjects to assess their consumption levels, Whelton found that whether they had used the salt shaker liberally or not did not appear to make any significant difference to their risk of heart disease. What mattered more, Whelton reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine, was the ratio of salt intake to that of potassium, another dietary mineral (found plentifully in foods such as bananas, avocado, sweet potato and tuna) that is known to balance out the artery-tightening effects of sodium.
An earlier report published in the British Medical Journal in 2002 reviewed the evidence on whether salt avoidance could lower blood pressure and found that, while it was helpful to those on medication for hypertension, there were no clear benefits for anyone else. Similarly, when researchers from Copenhagen University reviewed the available literature for the Cochrane Collaboration in 2003, they concluded “there is little evidence for long-term benefit from reducing salt intake”.
In fact, Alderman says that of nine observational studies looking at a total of more than 100,000 people, four papers found that reduced dietary salt was associated with an increased risk of death and disability from heart attacks. “In one that focused on obese people, more salt was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death,” he says. “But in the remaining four no association was seen.”
However, for those advocating salt cuts — and they remain the majority — the evidence against high-sodium diets is clear. Graham MacGregor, professor of cardiovascular medicine at St George’s Hospital and chair of the Consensus Action on Salt and Health (CASH) dismisses the negative take on salt reduction as “balderdash” claiming that such findings are “usually put out by the food industry” to bolster their own cause. [An ad hominem argument. The man is no scientist] “From the day you are born, your blood pressure starts to go up slowly,” MacGregor says. “Salt is a major factor in that and high-salt diets are the main reason why blood pressure rises with age. And more deaths are linked to raised blood pressure than anything else.”
Precisely how salt raises blood pressure is not entirely clear. It is thought that when salt intake is too high, the kidneys to pass it all into the urine and some ends up in the bloodstream. This then draws more water into the blood, increasing volume and pressure.
MacGregor says that reducing salt to the 6 gram daily levels recommended by the FSA could lead to a 16 per cent reduction in deaths from strokes and a 12 per cent reduction in deaths from coronary heart disease. “The evidence that links salt to blood pressure is as strong as that linking cigarette smoking to cancer and heart disease,” he says. “If successful, the reduction to 6 grams a day would have the biggest impact of any public health campaign ever.”
Everybody could do with cutting down. In 2008, MacGregor and his colleagues published a study in the Journal of Human Hypertension, which looked at the salt intakes of 1,658 people aged 7 to 18 in the UK. They found salt to be responsible for raising blood pressure in children.
Once more, though, the findings were disputed. In an accompanying editorial, Professor Alderman questioned the link, pointing out that those who ate more salt merely ate more food. Adjusting for calorie intake, Alderman suggested, wiped out the significance of the relationship.
So where does this leave a nation that is being urged to become more salt-savvy? If we scrutinise food labels for their salt content we may live longer. But we may not.
Collins advises against becoming preoccupied with totting up daily salt scores and says she increasingly encounters people whose serum sodium levels have dipped to a dangerous low. “Extreme dieters and vegetarians seem to be most at risk,” she says. “Salt occurs naturally in many of the foods they avoid such as cheese and meat. Since these people are often also drinking copious amounts of water because they think it’s healthy, they often display early signs of hyponatraemia, all linked to their low salt intake.”
In countries where populations are given free access to salt, people typically consume about 5g-8g a day. “A lot of people could relax about their salt intake. If you don’t have hypertension to begin with, then just trying to eat healthily will ensure you don’t get too much,” Collins says. “Advice to cut back on salt really is the poorest of all the dietary messages around.”
The endemic Leftist censorship of dissent
Alive and well even in the administration of a small English city
A POLITICAL row has broken out over a Derby Conservative councillor’s decision to show a climate change-sceptic film in the city’s council chamber. The new film, Not Evil Just Wrong, is a documentary which suggests evidence of global warming is inconclusive and that the impact climate change laws will have on industry is much more harmful to humans than beneficial. It is a direct challenge to Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, with was shown to councillors in Derby during Labour’s control of the authority in 2007.
Tory councillor Frank Leeming put forward the idea to show the new film today, sparking criticism from Labour councillors. Labour group leader Chris Williamson said: “I am totally appalled. The council is committed to reducing carbon emissions, yet the Conservatives are pushing a film which threatens all of that. “It reaffirms our belief that the Conservatives have merely been paying lip service to environmental issues in pushing their new branding as a caring party.”
And Labour councillor Ranjit Banwait, who is vice-chairman of the council’s climate change commission, called for the resignation of its Conservative chairman. He said: “If the Conservatives don’t believe in climate change, then perhaps the chairman of the commission, Tory councillor Phil Ingall, should step down. “They’re setting an incredibly dangerous precedent. They’re peddling a viewpoint which disputes what scientists have already proved about the state of the planet. Why would they do that?”
But Harvey Jennings, leader of the Conservative group, said Mr Leeming’s view was not shared by the group as a whole, adding that the Tories were “committed to tackling climate change” and believed it was a reality. He said: “This is about facilitating freedom of speech.” He added that Mr Leeming’s actions were not an embarrassment to his party.
Mr Leeming confirmed he was a climate change sceptic. He said: “Al Gore’s film contained nine ‘facts’ which were wrong – and this film shows scientists answering those points.” He said he did not feel his strong views, which differ from the local Tory group’s stance, meant he should not be a member of the party. “We are a democratic group which allows free speech. I don’t see any reason why I shouldn’t do this,” he said.
Conservative MEP Roger Helmer is an outspoken sceptic of climate change and has even published his own book challenging the issue. He said it was right that councillors should be able to show another side to the debate over climate change and screened the film himself in the European parliament. “There is no point saying a party which has signed up to a green agenda is not allowed to say a word, that is not honest politics,” he said.
British police banned from saying ‘Evening all’
With the number of ordinary words that are banned, it would be no surprise if they felt it was too risky to open their mouths at all on many occasions
“Police officers in the UK have been told to avoid using the classic “Evenin’ all” greeting because it may confuse ethnic minorities. Warwickshire Police’s handbook ‘Policing Our Communities’, issued to every member of its staff, gives advice on communicating with people from different ethnic groups in a section entitled ‘Communication, Some Do’s & Don’ts’.
It states: ‘Don’t assume those words for the time of day, such as afternoon or evening have the same meaning.’ A force spokesman said: ‘Terms such as ‘afternoon’ and ‘evening’ are somewhat subjective in meaning and can vary according to a person’s culture or nationality.
‘The point is there is an element of subjectivity leading to a variation between cultures that we need to be aware of – taking steps as far as possible to ensure our communication is effective in serving the public.’
In another section entitled ‘Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Communities’ the force’s handbook confusingly states that the phrase ‘lesbians and gay men’ is likely to be satisfactory for most situations when talking about sexual orientation.
But it says ‘homosexual’ is ‘best avoided’ as the word is ‘interpreted differently by many, and relates to sexual practice as opposed to sexual orientation.’
Following a Freedom of Information request to police forces and fire services about the guidance they give their staff on their use of language, it has also emerged that a number of organisations, including Essex Police and Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, instruct staff to avoid the phrases ‘child, youth or youngster.’ This is because such phrases could have ‘connotations of inexperience, impetuosity, and unreliability or even dishonesty’.
The same guide also warns against the phrases ‘manning the phones’, ‘layman’s terms’ and ‘the tax man’, for ‘making women invisible’. London Fire Brigade instructs its staff not to use the terms ‘businessmen’ or ‘housewives’ because they ‘reinforce outdated stereotypes’.
Marie Clair of the Plain English Campaign said: ‘Those writing these guides are over-analysing things. It’s political correctness gone crazy. ‘I feel sorry for the poor emergency service workers who have grown up in a country where the words they being told not to use are familiar and part of every day language. ‘Is anyone really going to be confused by ‘evening’? And if you can’t say what a lovely afternoon it is, what are you meant to say – what a lovely 3pm?
