Originally posted by lucifershammerIn this instance, I think the Bishop and the MP (this is starting to sound like the start of a joke, but never mind) are discussing church-sponsored schools - the bishop has an obvious interest and the MP is the local MP where there are plans to have such schools. I think they know what they are talking about. I might not agree though, but that isn't the point.
Is 'Sir' and 'Lord' worse off than 'Bishop' and 'MP'?
And what's wrong with 'Maj Gen'? It represents a person who has entered a very difficult profession and risen to the very top. Is it worse off than 'Dr.' or 'Prof.' or 'Headmaster'?
EDIT: And virtually anyone with any kind of achievement can be a 'Sir'.
Meanwhile the Lord is discussing party whips in the Lords and the 'Sir' is talking about taxation policies for the tory party, both of which are hardly 'hot' issues.
In this case, the Maj Gen is talking about military issues, so that's fair enough.
Maybe it is a perception thing on my part - but my experience of the Telegraph is that it is just a tory party vehicle, and their contributors reflect that constituency.
Originally posted by RedmikeAs, in my experience, the Guardian reflects the left-wing viewpoint (not necessarily the same as Labour these days).
In this instance, I think the Bishop and the MP (this is starting to sound like the start of a joke, but never mind) are discussing church-sponsored schools - the bishop has an obvious interest and the MP is the local MP where there are plans to have such schools. I think they know what they are talking about. I might not agree though, but that isn't the poi ...[text shortened]... is that it is just a tory party vehicle, and their contributors reflect that constituency.
Personally, I find it useful to look at both sides.