#hastings's comment about the BBC guy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

whatiwassuggesting-blog · 7 years

Text

A friend of mine - Hide and Seek

Title: A friend of mine Author: Chris (WhatIWasSuggesting) Fandom: BBC Sherlock Genre: Mystery/Horror Rating: Teen (Fiction T) Chapter: 2 of 4 (updated weekly) Word count: 2200 Warnings: Major Character Death, mild language conform show standard. Be advised, I didn’t put the horror part in for nothing.

Disclaimer: BBC Sherlock is not mine. There would be far more episodes if it was. I just borrow the characters and let them die. Because that’s what people DO.

Summary: When Sherlock disappears John is thrown into a frenzy - will Lestrade be able to find him, or will more sinister characters win the day?

Author notes: I’m supposed to be enjoying my holiday, instead, I found a way to get online and get you guys this new Chapter. (Hooray for McDonalds!)

A special thanks to my two wonderful betas: Alex (@evr0s), Peggy (@peggymarsh) and Tami (@ti-ori-se). You guys are awesome and I wouldn’t be able to produce this level of quality without your critical eye.

Read this at AO3 or FanFiction.net. Click here for the first chapter.

Chapter two - Hide and Seek

Why exactly Sherlock referred to Scotland Yard as dull or boring was beyond John, but to be fair, Sherlock would call his own murder dull, given the right circumstances.

The missing person’s report was filled out relatively fast, apart from Sherlock’s date of birth. It was rather painful when they found out none of them knew when Sherlock’s birthday was. John realized that in the 5 years he had known the detective, they had never celebrated it. Not even once. After consulting official records they found out it was the 6th of January. John marked it down in his calendar. Mary gave him a look.

John was grateful that Greg took time to file the report himself. Strictly speaking, it wasn’t his job, but it was nice to have a friendly face around. Somebody who didn’t roll their eyes at the name of Sherlock Holmes. John was certain that half of Scotland Yard was secretly relieved the arrogant detective had vanished.

“This must be what it feels like to have a drug addicted, teenage son.” Mary’s voice had interrupted his train of thought.

He glared at his wife. Her attitude bothered him. She had been all smiles since they left Baker Street this morning, cracking one joke after the other. She didn’t seem concerned for Sherlock’s safety at all. It was like a game to her, one that she was excited to play. John didn’t share that sentiment.

“Sherlock is not a teenager.”

She smiled. “Are you sure?”

Before John could reply, his phone rang. John’s mouth twitched as he saw the caller ID. It was the wrong Holmes.

“Mycroft.”

“Hello, John. My little brother is playing hide and seek again, I see?”

It was like Mycroft had his little brother on this fancy government text alert. John should have known. He rubbed the bridge of his nose.

“What is it you want, Mycroft?”

“Don’t you think a missing person’s report is a little... dramatic?”

John snorted. Mycroft, of all people, calling him dramatic. Now he had really seen everything.

“It’s what normal people do when somebody goes missing. They go to the police, fill out a missing person’s report. You know, for people who don’t have government resources available to them.”

“Surely this is not the first time Sherlock’s gone missing.” There was a pause. “You could have contacted me.”

“Yeah, sure, I’ll send a car. Oh wait, that’s what you do.”

Mycroft ignored John’s snarky comment, which was probably for the best. “I have people tracing his phone as we speak, since you seem so concerned.”

“That’s nice of you.”

“Do I detect a hint of sarcasm, Dr. Watson?”

“No, no. It’s really heartwarming how you hijack the machinery of the state to look after your own family.”

“Believe it or not, my brother occasionally has utility to the nation and therefore can be viewed as an asset.”

“An asset, really?”

“And a liability, all at once.”

There was a pause. John rolled his eyes. Imagine if people knew that you actually care for your younger brother, like a normal human being. It had to be a downright nightmare, judging by the way Mycroft handled the whole situation.

There were muffled voices on the other side of the line. Mary tried to draw his attention, but he dismissed her.

“It seems Sherlock disabled his phone, we cannot trace it.”

John sat up straight in his chair. “What?”

“He disabled his phone. Clearly, he does not want to be found.”

“Or someone doesn’t want him to be found.”

Mycroft laughed. “I assure you, Sherlock can take excellent care of himself, when he chooses to apply himself to that sort of thing.”

“Something is wrong, Mycroft. I’m worried something has happened to him.”

“Worry is a misuse of your imagination, doctor. Sherlock will no doubt turn up sooner or later. In the meantime, I suggest you check his bolt holes. I recommend starting at the leaning tomb in Hampstead Cemetery, he seems to favor that one lately. Good day, John.”

John lowered his phone and stared at Mary.

“What is it? What did he say?”

“Sherlock turned off his phone. He can’t be traced.”

“What was his last known location?”

“He didn’t say.”

“Who didn’t say what?” John looked over his shoulder. Greg had returned with coffee.

“That was Mycroft.”

Greg raised his eyebrows as he set down the tray on the desk. “Well, that was quick. The report has barely been processed.”

“He tried to trace Sherlock’s phone, but he couldn’t get a location.”

“He turned it off?”

Mary laughed. John and Greg looked at her in surprise.

“Well, obviously he turned it off. He’s not an idiot, he knows it can be tracked. I bet it’s the drugs again.” John glared at her. She sounded way too cheerful. When she caught sight of him she raised her eyebrows. “Oh, you can’t seriously be surprised! Not after you dragged him out of a drug den, and after what happened on the plane. Really, John, it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure this out.”

“Did you check any of his bolt holes?” Greg leaned against his desk. John looked down. He had been so sure something was wrong that he hadn’t considered looking for Sherlock first. Greg folded his arms. “Did you?”

John looked up. “Something is wrong. Sherlock wouldn’t have summoned us to Baker Street if he wasn’t going to show up.”

Greg shrugged. “It’s Sherlock, for all I know he’s running an experiment on us.”

“Besides, don’t you think that if someone took him, he would be smart enough to get a message through to you somehow?”

That was the first useful thing Mary had said since Sherlock had gone missing. He had to admit, it was hard to argue with that logic. Somehow, Sherlock always managed to come out on top. Odds were, he found some way to get word out if he did get into trouble. John bit his lip. It still didn’t feel right, but at least it gave him something to do.

“Maybe I missed it…”

Greg leaned forward a bit. “Sorry, what?”

“I must have missed it.” John got to his feet and grabbed his coat. Greg’s eyes followed his every move.

“Where are you going?”

“Mary is right, if something happened Sherlock would find a way to tell us. I’m going back to Baker Street.”

“How about his bolt holes?”

John paused. “Can you check them out?”

Greg sighed. “Strictly speaking, it’s not my job to go out and search for missing people…”

John looked away, doing his best to hide his disappointment. He managed a weak smile as he looked back at Greg. “I understand…”

Greg rested his hands on the desk. “I’ll see what I can do, I may have some time to spare. During lunch maybe.”

“Thanks, Greg. Check Hampstead Cemetery first.”

“The leaning tomb?”

“That’s the one.”

Mary pushed herself to her feet. “I suppose we’re off then.”

John waited for her by the door. His patience was wearing thin. Everything about Mary annoyed him, and especially her slow pace. He was convinced she did it on purpose. When they finally made it out he hailed a cab.

The ride to Baker street was quiet. John looked out the window, wishing he could somehow speed up time. There was a sense of urgency that he couldn’t quite place. He toyed with his phone, glancing down at it from time to time.

When they finally arrived, John bolted from the car, leaving Mary to deal with the cabby. He strode to the door as he fiddled with his keys, dropping them in his haste to find the right one. As he picked them up the door opened. In the doorway was Mrs. Hudson. She shrieked as she caught sight of him.

“Oh! John. You startled me!”

“Mrs. Hudson. I’m so sorry.” John stammered. “Have you heard anything from Sherlock?”

“I’m afraid not, dear. How did it go at the Yard?”

“Good, good. We filled out a missing person’s report.” John paused. “Mrs. Hudson, do you know when Sherlock’s birthday is?”

“Of course, dear. It’s the 6th of January. I don’t make a fuss. Sherlock likes to be left alone on his birthday. I tried to make him a cake once, dreadful day.” She shook her head.

“Oh, stop beating yourself up over it.” Mary had caught up, her hand resting on her belly. John rolled his eyes.

“Didn’t you know?” Mrs. Hudson raised her eyebrows. “Oh! You didn’t know!” She laughed as she laid a hand on his shoulder. “It’s a good thing you’re such a lovely doctor.” She chuckled and stepped past them. John’s gaze followed her. Wait, what?

Mary smiled as entered the house. John followed her up the stairs and into the living room. The flat felt strangely lifeless. His eyes lingered on Sherlock’s chair. What if Sherlock wouldn’t return? His mouth went dry. He quickly dismissed the thought. Sherlock would be back in his chair before they knew it, complaining about boring cases and dull clients. Quite possibly setting the flat on fire or blowing it up with one of his experiments. Just like it had always been.

He tore his eyes away from the chair and walked over to the desk. It was littered with notes and seemingly random objects. John tapped the desk with his fingertips, looking for anything out of place. That was easier said than done in the chaos Sherlock called his flat.

Unsure where to start, John stood by the desk, searching the flat for anything out of the ordinary. His eyes fell on the letters stabbed to the mantelpiece. He moved past Sherlock’s chair and dislodged the knife. Nothing out of the ordinary. Just unopened envelopes containing potential new cases. John shook his head and looked up.

The skull stared at him with its hollow eye sockets. John put the letters back and picked it up, not quite sure what he was looking for. It was real, that much he could tell. Sherlock’s words echoed through his head. “A friend of mine. When I say friend…” John shook his head and put the skull back. He didn’t really want to know.

“John! I think I found something!” Mary appeared in the doorway to the kitchen with a huge smile on her face, holding a syringe. “I told you, looking after Sherlock is like having a drug addicted, teenage son.” She waved the syringe around. John felt a pang of disappointment.

“Sherlock is not a teenager.”

“Then maybe he can stop acting like one. I’m tired of chasing after him.”

John took the syringe from her and examined it closely. It was unmistakably used. His face hardened. First the drug den, then the plane, and now this. Obviously the consulting detective couldn’t be trusted to live on his own. When he turned up, John was going to talk to him about living arrangements.

“Better add every drug den in London to the list of places to search for Sherlock.” He couldn’t keep the bitter tone out of his voice.

“Maybe Bill Wiggins can help us narrow it down.”

“I’ll be sure to check under the bridge as well.”

John threw the syringe on the ground and stormed out the door. He was going to find Sherlock and knock some sense into him.

Once out on the street, he hailed a cab. He knew exactly where to go.

***

Several hours and drug dens later, John still wasn’t any closer to finding his best friend. He scrolled through his messages to make sure he hadn’t missed one from Sherlock. Apart from texts from Mary and Greg there was nothing new. He ignored Mary’s message and opened the one from Greg. Maybe there was news. Instead it was an apology for not being able to check the bolt holes. He was called to a murder investigation.

John rubbed his face as he looked out the window of the cab. He was going to check one more address, but he was rapidly losing any hope of simply finding Sherlock in a drug den. Now that he had cooled off, he wasn’t so sure anymore. It didn’t make sense. Why had he set up a meeting for the three of them if he had no intention of showing up?

He rested his elbow on the edge of the window, biting his lip as he watched London slide by on the other side. His phone vibrated in his hand. His heart jumped to his throat as he glanced down. It was a message from Sherlock.

Meet me at Baker Street.

He leaned forward and knocked on the glass separating him from the driver.

“Never mind the last address, take me to Baker Street. 221B Baker Street.”

A comment, like or reblog for this chapter will be incredibly appreciated, since I went through all this trouble to get it to you guys on time. Next chapter is scheduled for Wednesday April 5th.

Go to next chapter.

#Fanfiction #A friend of mine #Sherlock #BBC Sherlock #John Watson #Evil Mary #Mystery #Horror #Warning: character death #warning: Mild language

4 notes · View notes

talkstarwars · 7 years

Text

Lucasfilm Make A Statement About Carrie Fisher

Yesterday a few outlets (big ones too) jumped the gun on a story about how Lucasfilm were planning to handling General Leia in Star Wars Episode VIII and beyond. Lucasfilm then made a statement on the matter...

This all came to my attention in the Talk Star Wars VIP facebook group, where we often discuss developments like this. Paul posted an article by Gizmodo that quoted a BBC Newsnight piece claiming Lucasfilm were negotiating with Carrie Fisher's estate for the future use of Carrie's likeness in Star Wars films. Here's a telling quote from the BBC piece-

"If Disney gets the go-ahead, Carrie Fisher will join Peter Cushing, who, last month, fifteen years after his death, played a key role in Rogue One as Grand Moff Tarkin. With computers, anything is possible, but is it desirable?" -- BBC Newsnight

I must point out that Germain over at Gizmodo took a very measured approach to the story, and did his due diligence in reaching out to Disney for comment.

This just goes to show how these terribly divisive arguments start, and how jumping to the wrong conclusion about a company's motives can generate a great deal of bad will toward both the company and the product they are trying to produce. Now, I don't want to score points of off the BBC for making an error in judgement here, but here is my response the piece when it hit our facebook group-

"You know this could simply mean Lucasfilm are exploring the option of moving some of Leia's scenes from VIII to IX. This could allow them to leave her fate open at the end of VIII and not require CGI in IX. Remember Tarkin was two minutes of screen time that took 18 months and millions of dollars to create. We are a long way away from a feature length main character being viable. Disney and Lucasfilm would need to pull the trigger on this decision now if they require VIII reshoots to restructure the movie around Leia. Moving some of Leia's VIII responsibilities to another character might facilitate a re-use of Leia footage in IX." -- Me

Now that was the Star Wars fan in me talking, not the blogger or the podcaster, the fan. My reaction was to try and see a possible solution here, and not a huge moral dilemma. I wonder how many Star Wars fans would allow themselves to get swept up by the BBC's provocative, presumptuous comments.

Following this piece, Lucasfilm made a bold, uncharacteristic move and made a public statement. Here is the statement in full-

"We don’t normally respond to fan or press speculation, but there is a rumor circulating that we would like to address. We want to assure our fans that Lucasfilm has no plans to digitally recreate Carrie Fisher’s performance as Princess or General Leia Organa. Carrie Fisher was, is, and always will be a part of the Lucasfilm family. She was our princess, our general, and more importantly, our friend. We are still hurting from her loss. We cherish her memory and legacy as Princess Leia, and will always strive to honor everything she gave to Star Wars." -- Lucasfilm Ltd.

Lets get a few things out there. Firstly, the meeting of the Lucasfilm executives and the producers of Star Wars, had planned a meeting for January to discuss the future of Star Wars. The original intention was to look at whether Star Wars needed enumerated saga entries, or if it could move forward with stand alone A Star Wars Story films. One would imagine the success of Rogue One would have given the group much to debate. It was only after Carrie Fisher's untimely passing in December that "how to manage Leia" would have jumped to the top of their list of things to discuss. To suggest that this is a "unseemly haste" is needlessly provocative.

The Leia Problem is one that Lucasfilm simply have to solve. Carrie was "absolutely wrapped" on Episode VIII at the time of her death and so the big question is, how do the producers address her absence in IX. We know Carrie was slated for IX (the actress made comments to this effect at Star Wars Celebration in the summer of 2016) so Leia has story responsibilities in that movie that simply have to be serviced. Put bluntly; Leia survives VIII.

Unfortunately the debate about the posthumous use of deceased performer's likenesses has tempted many into making an argument where none exists. Would Lucasfilm's first thought have been, "build us a digital Leia!" No. Why would it have been. In their statement Lucasfilm point out that Carrie is a family member, a person they worked with to create this wonderful character. She was not simply an asset. Whats more, the Leia likeness is only part of the equation here. Carrie's performance was 99% of the character, how can that be addressed without Carrie herself being available. Remember, Tarkin had Guy Henry under that digital make-up. So simply moving ones and zeros around would not a Leia create. Which brings us to a few very real problems Lucasfilm have to consider.

One. With Leia having story responsibilities in IX, and no Carrie Fisher to deliver them, IX will need to be altered.

Two. With Carrie"absolutely wrapped" on episode VIII, that story, and indeed that film will most likely need to be changed.

Three. The legacy of both Carrie Fisher and Princess Leia will need to be considered.

Lets consider point two first. Leia's arc in VIII is in the can, so one option, which seems clear to me, is to take the available footage and spread it over the two movies. Now I speak from a place of complete and utter ignorance when it comes to the story of VIII, but there have been rumours. If Leia is to fall foul of an attack (one teased by Rian Johnson's involvement wit the story of Bloodline - think napkin bomb), and she sits out much of the movie, then leave Leia's fate open ended in VIII. This will give her the Han Solo moment from Empire, and the opportunity to return in IX using whatever "third act come back" was shot for VIII.

This will require significant retooling of VIII, but the have most of the year to achieve it, moving Leia's plot specific story points to other characters in VIII. An approach considered by Lucasfilm before committing to the Tarkin character in Rogue One.

This approach should allow Leia, indeed Carrie, to complete the trilogy / saga, without killing the character off, or recasting / CGI-ing the part. This will require a restructure of both films around the needs of that one character. Which may or may not be a huge task.

This covers point one on the issues list. Altering Leia's story responsibilities in IX. It's a huge assumption, but we've probably all made it; Leia would most likely have been the one to redeem Kylo Ren and bring about the return of Ben Solo / Organa, her son. If something like that had been planned for IX, then a major retool now would rob the character of this powerful arc. Like I said, it's an assumption, but that role / responsibility could pass to Luke, if handled correctly.

Point three is much more important to me. Protecting and respecting the legacy of both Carrie Fisher, the custodian of Princess Leia and the legacy of Princess / General Leia. Recasting the role is an absolute no, in my humble opinion. I think it will upset and distract too many people if someone else wanders onto the screen in Leia's wardrobe speaking Leia's lines. I mean, would you have accepted another actor in the role of Han Solo in The Force Awakens? What about Luke in VIII? If Kevin Spacey turns up on Ahch-To in Luke's robes to train Rey, how are you going to respond? No politely that's for sure! So why would that be acceptable for Leia? It simply isn't. And Leia is worth so much more than simply despatching her off screen, or in expanded story telling. I expect to hear this as an option soon, "Kill her off in a comic book or novel. Then drop that in the opening crawl of IX." That is simply not sufficient when it comes to giving Leia her exit from the Star Wars saga. This is Princess Leia! She needs to leave Star Wars with grace and dignity. Why kill her off at all!?

I'll admit, after we lost Carrie, my first reaction was, write her out in VIII. Now though, having had a little time to think it over, I'm convinced that her arc in VIII could be split over the two movies. Obviously I have no idea what her story arc is, but with a little rewriting there must be a way that allows Carrie Fisher to contribute to the story, posthumously, through a performance already given. Leia's role may seem minimal if spread across the two films, but by moving dialogue to other characters and the judicious use of deleted / alternate takes, there might be a way to service this character and Carrie Fisher that pays tribute to both.

Whatever the solution ends up being, the first steps toward it need to be taken now. It is not unseemly for Lucasfilm to have these discussions. It's not hasty to approach Carrie Fisher's family and discuss the posthumous use of Carrie's performance[s]. It is practical and it is necessary if we are going to get the story Leia and Carrie deserve.

I would very much like to know how you would prefer to see the loss of Carrie Fisher handled in the upcoming Star Wars films. If you'd like to share your thoughts, please feel free to pop them in the comments below.

As always this post was written with love and respect to Carrie Fisher and her family. Our thoughts remain with Billie Lourd and with Todd Fisher at this time.

Thank you for reading,

Marc

#Star Wars #Princess Leia #Carrie Fisher #Episode VIII #Episode IX

2 notes · View notes

gyrlversion · 5 years

Text

Boris Johnsons chaotic path to power finally pays off

LONDON (AP) — Boris Johnson aspires to be a modern-day Winston Churchill. Critics fear he’s a British Donald Trump.

Johnson won the contest to lead the governing Conservative Party on Tuesday, and is set to become Britain’s prime minister on Wednesday.

Like revered World War II leader Churchill, Johnson aims to turn a national crisis — in this case Brexit — into a triumph. Like Trump, he gained his country’s top political office by deploying celebrity, clowning, provocation and a loose relationship with the truth.

“He’s a different kind of a guy, but they say I’m a different kind of a guy, too,” Trump said approvingly last week. “We get along well.”

Maintaining strong relations with the volatile Trump will be one of the new leader’s major challenges. So will negotiating Britain’s stalled exit from the European Union, the conundrum that brought down predecessor Theresa May.

It’s hard to say whether he will rise to the occasion or fail dismally.

Blond, buoyant and buffoonish, the 55-year-old Johnson may be one of Britain’s most famous politicians, but in many ways he is a mystery.

His beliefs? Johnson is now a strong believer of Brexit, but he famously agonized over the decision, writing two newspaper columns — one in favor of quitting the EU , one against — before throwing himself behind the “leave” campaign in Britain’s 2016 referendum over whether it should remain in the bloc.

His plan for Brexit? Johnson says he will lead Britain out of the EU on the scheduled date of Oct. 31, with or without a divorce deal. He says Britain should prepare intensely for leaving without an agreement, but insists the chances of it happening are “a million-to-one against.”

Then again, he also once said he had as much chance of becoming Britain’s prime minister as of finding Elvis on Mars.

Johnson statements are best taken with a grain of salt, it seems.

Historian Max Hastings, Johnson’s former boss at the Daily Telegraph newspaper, has called him “a man of remarkable gifts, flawed by an absence of conscience, principle or scruple.”

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was born in New York in 1964, the eldest child of a close-knit, extroverted and fiercely competitive upper middle-class British family. His forebears include Turkish journalist and government minister Ali Kemal, one of Johnson’s great-grandfathers. His sister Rachel has said Johnson’s childhood ambition was to be “world king.”

Johnson attended elite boarding school Eton College, where he began to use his middle name, Boris — his family called him Al — and cultivated the still-familiar image of a quick-witted, slightly shambolic entertainer able to succeed without visibly trying very hard.

At Oxford University, he was president of the Oxford Union debating society, and a member of the Bullingdon Club, a raucous drinking-and-dining society notorious for drunken vandalism.

After university, Johnson became a journalist. He survived being fired from The Times newspaper for making up a quote to become Brussels correspondent for the Daily Telegraph. He specialized in exaggerated yarns about the EU’s dastardly plans to truss Britain in red tape. The Brussels officials who now have to deal with Prime Minister Johnson have not forgotten his role in demonizing the EU.

Johnson biographer Sonia Purnell, who worked with him at the Telegraph, said he had “a talent for self-promotion and an obsession with power that marked him out.”

Then came a stint as editor of conservative-leaning news-magazine The Spectator, frequent television appearances and, simultaneously, election as a member of Parliament.

Stumbles and setbacks were frequent, but quickly overcome. In the 1990s, Johnson shrugged off a leaked recording in which he promised to give a friend, Darius Guppy, the name of a journalist that Guppy wanted beaten up. Later he was fired from a senior Conservative post for lying about an extramarital affair.

He bounced back, just as he has done when called out for offensive words and phrases. Johnson has called Papua New Guineans cannibals, claimed that “part-Kenyan” Barack Obama had an ancestral dislike of Britain and last year compared Muslim women who wear face-covering veils to “letter boxes.” Johnson has dismissed such comments as jokes or plain-speaking, or accused journalists of distorting his words.

In 2008, he was elected mayor of London, becoming a cheerful global ambassador for the city — an image exemplified when he got stuck on a zip wire during the 2012 London Olympics, waving Union Jacks as he dangled in mid-air.

Critics blasted his backing for vanity projects including a little-used cable car, an unrealized “Boris Island” airport and a never-built “garden bridge” over the River Thames.

In 2016, his energy, and popularity — and, critics say, mendacity — played a key role in the EU referendum campaign. Opponents have never forgiven him for the claim that Britain sends the EU 350 million pounds ($440 million) a week, money that could instead be spent on the U.K.’s health service. It was untrue — Britain’s net contribution was about half that much.

After the country’s surprise vote to leave toppled Prime Minister David Cameron, Johnson looked set to succeed him. But he dropped out of the race after a key ally, Michael Gove, decided to run against him.

May won the contest and made Johnson foreign secretary. His two years in the job were studded with missteps. He was recorded saying that a violence-torn Libyan city could become a tourism hub once authorities “clear the dead bodies away,” and worsened the plight of a British-Iranian woman detained in Tehran by repeating an incorrect Iranian allegation that she was a journalist.

In July 2018, Johnson quit the government over his opposition to May’s Brexit blueprint, and became Britain’s Brexiteer-in-chief, arguing that leaving the EU would be easy if the country just showed more “can-do spirit.”

Many Conservative Party members have chosen to believe him. They see Johnson as a politician who can deliver Brexit, win over floating voters and defeat rival parties on both the left and the right.

Critics say he is a Trump-like populist, who uses phrases — like the “letter boxes” slight — designed to push buttons among bigoted supporters.

A recent documentary about former Trump adviser Steve Bannon shows Bannon saying he had spoken and texted with Johnson about a key speech, though Johnson denies Bannon gave him campaign advice.

In policies and style, Trump and Johnson have plenty of differences. Johnson’s championing of “global Britain” contrasts with Trump’s “America First” stance, and the British leader is self-deprecating where Trump is bombastic.

But, like Trump, Johnson is loved by supporters for what they regard as his authenticity — whether or not it is genuine. They forgive his missteps and his messy personal life.

Johnson and his second wife, Marina Wheeler, announced in September they were splitting up after 25 years of marriage that produced four children. Johnson has fathered at least one other child outside his marriages.

Last month police were called to a noisy argument between Johnson and his new partner, Carrie Symonds, at their London home. The fracas dominated headlines for days, but failed to dent his campaign.

This week Johnson is due to achieve the dream of a lifetime by moving in to 10 Downing St. Observers warn that it may be a shock.

“Working a crowd is very different from working a government,” historian Peter Hennessy told the BBC. “He’s a remarkable attack journalist, he’s a kind of written version of a shock jock, I’ve always thought. And you can’t govern that way.”

___

Follow AP’s full coverage of Brexit at: https://www.apnews.com/Brexit

The post Boris Johnsons chaotic path to power finally pays off appeared first on Gyrlversion.

from WordPress http://www.gyrlversion.net/boris-johnsons-chaotic-path-to-power-finally-pays-off/

#Uncategorized

0 notes

theconservativebrief · 6 years

Link

During the trophy ceremony for the women’s final of the 2018 US Open on Saturday, the new champion Naomi Osaka began to cry.

Serena Williams, who had just been defeated after a series of penalties she believed a male athlete never would have incurred, put her arm around Osaka. She whispered something in her former adversary’s ear. Beneath Osaka’s visor were the beginnings of a smile.

In that moment, the two showed more grace and respect than many commenting on the match, which became yet another referendum on Williams, whose every move is scrutinized in a way that’s inextricably tied to her gender and her race. Later, as the audience jeered during the trophy ceremony, Williams urged the crowd to support Osaka. “Let’s give everyone the credit where credit’s due and let’s not boo anymore,” she said.

The ceremony was an example of what Williams and many other highly visible women, in sports and beyond, have to contend with every day. It’s not enough for Williams to be one of the best athletes in the world, mere months after nearly dying after giving birth to her daughter. She has to deal with sexist and racist judgment of the way she expresses her emotions, while working to manage the emotions of everyone who watches her play.

[embedded content]

Earlier that day, Williams had sustained a series of penalties — for getting coaching from the sidelines (a charge she disputed), for throwing her racket, and for arguing with an umpire — that ultimately cost her a game. She had questioned the motivation behind the calls, saying to a referee, “There are men out here that do a lot worse.”

“Because I’m a woman, you’re going to take this away from me?” she asked. “That is not right.”

Williams had faced yet another example of what looked like unfair treatment, coming after the years of sexism and racism she’s faced from media and audiences alike. She had seen the dream of a 24th Grand Slam title, which would have been the first since the birth of her daughter Alexis Olympia and her recovery from a life-threatening blood clot, slip away. And then she had to stand up and accept the finalist trophy in front of a crowd whose boos and shouts could do nothing to restore what she felt was stolen from her.

Osaka, meanwhile, had just played against her childhood role model, the athlete whose performance on the court made her say, “I want to be like her,” according to the New York Times. She may have won, but she’d lost the chance to truly measure her skills against Williams, and to triumph without questions swirling around the victory. And then she had to stand up and accept her prize — her first Grand Slam singles trophy, and the first for any player born in Japan — in front of a booing crowd who’d wanted someone else to win.

In that moment, both faced a task nearly as difficult as the game itself: Given an outcome neither of them wanted, the opponents had to come together and respond with dignity and honor to the outrage of the crowd. They didn’t disappoint.

Asked for her perspective on the match, Williams instead turned attention back to Osaka. “She played well, and this is her first Grand Slam,” Williams said, her voice breaking.

“Let’s make this the best moment we can,” she urged the crowd. “Let’s give everyone the credit where credit’s due and let’s not boo anymore. We’re going to get through this and let’s be positive, so congratulations, Naomi!”

The announcer then turned to Osaka with a question that, under the circumstances, felt almost cruel. Given her dream to face Williams one day, he asked, “how does the reality compare with the dream?”

Osaka politely ducked the question. Then she essentially apologized to the crowd for winning. “I know that everyone was cheering for her and I’m sorry it had to end like this,” she said. “I just want to say thank you for watching the match.”

Later, in a news conference, Williams held her ground, refusing to express regret for behavior she felt would have been acceptable in a man. “The fact that I have to go through this is just an example for the next person that has emotions and that wants to express themselves, and they want to be a strong woman,” she said. Then she looked to the future: “They’re going to be allowed to do that because of today. Maybe it didn’t work out for me but it’s gonna work out for the next person.”

In the wake of Williams’s loss, much media coverage chastised her — or outright insulted her — for letting her emotions get the better of her on the court. The Telegraph called her argument with officials a “furious rant.” Multiple outlets referred to her “outburst.” Josh Billinson, editor of the Independent Journal Review, noted that while the New York Post called Williams’s argument with officials the “mother of all meltdowns,” similar behavior by the Yankees’ Aaron Boone was just “arguing a strike”:

Mark Knight, the editorial cartoonist for the Herald Sun, an Australian newspaper, has been criticized for a racist and sexist cartoon in which a wildly caricatured Williams stomps on her racket while the umpire asks her opponent, “Can’t you just let her win?”

Certainly, Williams did throw her racket and argue with an official. But as she has pointed out, that’s nothing her male peers haven’t done.

“We watch the guys do this all the time,” Katrina Adams, head of the United States Tennis Association, told the BBC. “There’s no equality when it comes to what the men are doing to the chair umpires and what the women are doing, and I think there has to be some consistency across the board.”

And lost in all the criticism of Williams’s “meltdown” has been the role of chair umpire Carlos Ramos. At the New York Times, David Waldstein cast Ramos as a stoic: Williams “demanded that Ramos apologize to her and make an announcement to the crowd that she was not receiving any coaching,” he writes. “Ramos, known for his no-nonsense approach, did not relent.”

In this telling of the match, Williams is demanding and Ramos is strong and rational, holding firm against Williams’s “nonsense.”

But former tennis star Billie Jean King, writing at the Washington Post, has a different take. In docking Williams a game, Ramos “made himself part of the match,” she writes. “He involved himself in the end result. An umpire’s job is to keep control of the match, and he let it get out of control. The rules are what they are, but the umpire has discretion, and Ramos chose to give Williams very little latitude in a match where the stakes were highest.”

Many critics of Williams, both after the match and long before, have cast her as a narcissist who makes everything about her. But King asserts Ramos made the match all about him. And whatever you think about his call, it’s undeniable that Williams and Osaka had to pick up the pieces, soothing the angry crowd and maintaining professionalism in difficult circumstances beyond their control.

It’s an all-too-familiar position for Williams, who constantly has to contend not just with her opponents on the court but with the whole world’s feelings about her.

“Imagine that you have to contend with critiques of your body that perpetuate racist notions that black women are hypermasculine and unattractive,” wrote Claudia Rankine in her 2015 New York Times Magazine profile of Williams. “Imagine being asked to comment at a news conference before a tournament because the president of the Russian Tennis Federation, Shamil Tarpischev, has described you and your sister as ‘brothers’ who are ‘scary’ to look at.”

Sometimes, the feelings she has to deal with even come from her fellow players — as Nadra Nittle of The Goods notes, Anna Kournikova reportedly once said, “I’m not Venus Williams. I’m not Serena Williams. I’m feminine. I don’t want to look like they do. I’m not masculine like they are.”

Williams wouldn’t be the first powerful woman to be forced to manage other people’s emotions as part of doing her job. As Joan C. Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of Law, wrote in the Washington Post in 2014, women are constantly negotiating the competing demands that they present themselves as feminine but not too feminine. Their solution: “Powerful women often take feminine stereotypes that can hold women back — the selfless mother and the dutiful daughter, for example — and use those stereotypes to propel themselves forward.”

As Williams points out, if you see a successful woman, you should probably assume she’s spent a lot of time managing other people’s reactions to get where she is. And Williams has to manage those reactions on a world stage, while remaining a role model for Osaka and other young female athletes who come after her.

It’s ironic, then, that the focus in the immediate wake of the US Open has been on Williams’s emotions — her “meltdown,” her “rant.” If anything, what Williams’s performance on Saturday showed us — indeed, what her entire career has shown us — is how emotional other people are about Serena Williams, and how hard she has to work to deal with that.

Original Source -> Serena Williams had to manage other people’s feelings about her. Again.

via The Conservative Brief

#IFTTT #The Conservative Brief

0 notes

deniscollins · 6 years

Text

Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

If you were a trading company manager, what would you do if a star performer told you that she was pregnant: (1) make accommodations or (2) inform her about pregnancy plateau in corporate advancement, tell her she’s getting old and having babies so there’s nowhere to advance, and announce on the trading floor that the most-read article on the BBC’s website was about pregnancy altering women’s brains? Why? What are the ethics underlying your decision?

American companies have spent years trying to become more welcoming to women. They have rolled out generous parental leave policies, designed cushy lactation rooms and plowed millions of dollars into programs aimed at retaining mothers.

But these advances haven’t changed a simple fact: Whether women work at Walmart or on Wall Street, getting pregnant is often the moment they are knocked off the professional ladder.

Throughout the American workplace, pregnancy discrimination remains widespread. It can start as soon as a woman is showing, and it often lasts through her early years as a mother.

The New York Times reviewed thousands of pages of court and public records and interviewed dozens of women, their lawyers and government officials. A clear pattern emerged. Many of the country’s largest and most prestigious companies still systematically sideline pregnant women. They pass them over for promotions and raises. They fire them when they complain.

In physically demanding jobs — where an increasing number of women unload ships, patrol streets and hoist boxes — the discrimination can be blatant. Pregnant women risk losing their jobs when they ask to carry water bottles or take rest breaks.

In corporate office towers, the discrimination tends to be more subtle. Pregnant women and mothers are often perceived as less committed, steered away from prestigious assignments, excluded from client meetings and slighted at bonus season.

Each child chops 4 percent off a woman’s hourly wages, according to a 2014 analysis by a sociologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Men’s earnings increase by 6 percent when they become fathers, after controlling for experience, education, marital status and hours worked.

“Some women hit the maternal wall long before the glass ceiling,” said Joan C. Williams, a professor at University of California Hastings College of Law who has testified about pregnancy discrimination at regulatory hearings. “There are 20 years of lab studies that show the bias exists and that, once triggered, it’s very strong.”

Of course, plenty of women decide to step back from their careers after becoming mothers. Some want to devote themselves to parenthood. Others lack affordable child care.

But for those who want to keep working at the same level, getting pregnant and having a child often deals them an involuntary setback.

The number of pregnancy discrimination claims filed annually with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been steadily rising for two decades and is hovering near an all-time high.

It’s not just the private sector. In September, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Stephanie Hicks, who sued the Tuscaloosa, Ala., police department for pregnancy discrimination. Ms. Hicks was lactating, and her doctor told her that her bulletproof vest was too tight and risked causing a breast infection. Her superior’s solution was a vest so baggy that it left portions of her torso exposed.

Tens of thousands of women have taken legal action alleging pregnancy discrimination at companies including Walmart, Merck, AT&T, Whole Foods, 21st Century Fox, KPMG, Novartis and the law firm Morrison & Foerster. All of those companies boast on their websites about celebrating and empowering women.

WOMEN’S BRAINS

As a senior woman at Glencore, the world’s largest commodity trading company, Erin Murphy is a rarity. She earns a six-figure salary plus a bonus coordinating the movement of the oil that Glencore buys and sells. Most of the traders whom she works with are men.

The few women at the company have endured a steady stream of sexist comments, according to Ms. Murphy. Her account of Glencore’s culture was verified by two employees, one of whom recently left the company. They requested anonymity because they feared retaliation.

On the company’s trading floor, men bantered about groping the Queen of England’s genitals. As Glencore was preparing to relocate from Connecticut to New York last February, the traders — including Ms. Murphy’s boss, Guy Freshwater — openly discussed how much “hot ass” there would be at the gym near the new office.

In 2013, a year after Ms. Murphy arrived, Mr. Freshwater described her in a performance review as “one of the hardest working” colleagues. In a performance review the next year, he called her a “strong leader” who is “diligent, conscientious and determined.”

But when Ms. Murphy told Mr. Freshwater she was pregnant with her first child, he told her it would “definitely plateau” her career, she said in the affidavit. In 2016, she got pregnant with her second child. One afternoon, Mr. Freshwater announced to the trading floor that the most-read article on the BBC’s website was about pregnancy altering women’s brains. Ms. Murphy, clearly showing, was the only pregnant woman there.

“It was like they assumed my brain had totally changed overnight,” Ms. Murphy, 41, said in an interview. “I was seen as having no more potential.”

When she was eight months pregnant, she discussed potential future career moves with Mr. Freshwater. According to her, Mr. Freshwater responded, “You’re old and having babies so there’s nowhere for you to go.”

A Glencore spokesman declined to comment on Mr. Freshwater’s behalf.

After she came back from four months of maternity leave, she organized her life so that having children wouldn’t interfere with her career. She arranged for child care starting at 7 a.m. so she would never be late.

But as her co-workers were promoted, her bosses passed her over and her bonuses barely rose, Ms. Murphy said.

When there was an opening to be the head of her department, Ms. Murphy said she never got a chance to apply. The job instead went to a less experienced man. Ms. Murphy said an executive involved in the selection process had previously asked repeatedly whether she had adequate child care.

Ms. Murphy said that after she missed out on another job, the same Glencore executive told her it was because of the timing of her maternity leave. Ms. Murphy has retained a lawyer and is planning to file a lawsuit against Glencore.

Glencore’s spokesman, Charles Watenphul, defended the company’s practices. “Glencore Ltd. is committed to supporting women going on and returning from maternity leave,” he said. He said Ms. Murphy was never passed over for promotions or treated differently because of her pregnancies. He said that she received bonuses and pay increases every year. Her lawyer, Mark Carey, said that Ms. Murphy was only given cost-of-living increases and was denied opportunities to advance.

Ms. Murphy’s problems are not rare. Managers often regard women who are visibly pregnant as less committed, less dependable, less authoritative and more irrational than other women.

A study conducted by Shelley Correll, a Stanford sociologist, presented hundreds of real-world hiring managers with two résumés from equally qualified women. Half of them signaled that the candidate had a child. The managers were twice as likely to call the apparently childless woman for an interview. Ms. Correll called it a “motherhood penalty.”

“There is a cultural perception that if you’re a good mother, you’re so dedicated to your children that you couldn’t possibly be that dedicated to your career,” Ms. Correll said.

VERY LONG ARTICLE CONTINUES

#Pregnancy #Sexism

0 notes

jimdsmith34 · 7 years

Text

British and Irish Lions tour 2017: All you need to know

(CNN)Four nations, one rugby team. One goal — to win a Test series against the mighty All Blacks of New Zealand.

The 2017 British and Irish Lions tour is approaching, one of the most anticipated events in world rugby.

It happens every four years, and the privileged players to be selected for this summer’s party are set to be announced Wednesday.

Find out all you need to know about the legendary Lions.

What are the British and Irish Lions?

The Lions is a composite squad formed every four years from the cream of players from England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland.

They rotate tours around the southern hemisphere’s big three rugby union nations — Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

The Lions concept grew out of combined British and Irish touring rugby sides from 1888.

For hordes of traveling fans dressed in the team’s replica red shirts, a Lions tour is a huge multinational jamboree.

Where are the Lions going in 2017?

New Zealand, land of the Long White Cloud. Land of the All Blacks.

The famous Kiwi side is the no.1 ranked team in the world and in 2015 became the first team to win back-to-back World Cups.

What soccer is to Brazil, rugby is to New Zealand.

Given the Lions is a scratch side coming together every four years, victory is hard to come by.

Canada seals historic Singapore Sevens title

Replay

More Videos …

MUST WATCH

In 11 Lions tours to New Zealand stretching back to 1904 (the first six tours were to both New Zealand and Australia), the visitors have triumphed once, a 2-1 victory in 1971.

On their last visit in 2005 the Lions suffered a 3-0 “blackwash.”

In all there have been 38 Tests between New Zealand and the Lions, with the Kiwis winning 29.

Four years ago in Australia, the Lions won the three-Test series 2-1, the first victory since 1997.

This time there will be seven warm-up games against provincial opposition and three Tests against the All Blacks, between June 3 and July 9.

See below for full fixture list.

READ: Hong Kong Sevens — rugby’s biggest party?

Squad

The squad of about 37 players will be named on April 19 in London. The identity of the captain will also be revealed by head coach Warren Gatland — the New Zealander is the Wales coach on a sabbatical for his second stint with the Lions.

Picking the make-up of the squad is the main challenge for the coach and his backroom team. How many players in each position do you take? How do you balance accusations of bias against different nationalities?

In 2005, England’s 2003 World Cup-winning coach Sir Clive Woodward was in charge and picked 25 Englishmen in a giant 45-man squad. Gatland’s smaller squad for Australia in 2013 featured nine Englishmen, 15 Welshman, 10 from Ireland and three from Scotland.

Occasionally, some big-name players miss out.

Being selected for a Lions tour is one of the highest honors in the game. The ultimate is making the Test team.

“Well as far as I’m concerned, it’s the greatest honor a British or Irish rugby player can get,” former Scotland captain Gavin Hastings told CNN.

Waking the sleeping dragon of rugby in China

Replay

More Videos …

MUST WATCH

Hastings, widely considered one of Scotland’s best ever players, was part of two Lions tours: one victorious, one a narrow defeat.

“They were great experiences and you can look back at them with a lot of positive memories and for me that’s what it’s all about.

“I think it’s a recognition that you are one of the best players amongst your peers and the four home countries.

“You’ve got an ability and an opportunity to go down with the Lions and play one of the very best sides in the Southern hemisphere and try and win a test series. The challenge is massive.”

England’s 2003 World Cup-winning captain Martin Johnson echoes Hastings’ comments, describing the Lions tour as a “mystical” event.

“It’s a very special thing — it doesn’t exist in most sports to have an amalgamated team of Great Britain and the whole of Ireland to go on a tour,” he told CNN.

“It’s very special, having the best of the best in any given period. Some guys make their name and they’re more famous as Lions than anything else so it is a great thing to do.

“They are part of the history of the game — real part of the history of the game, so it is very special.”

READ: Should slave-era song be used as sports chant?

Lions lore

How to turn four nations into one and forge a spirit of unity in a week before setting off on tour is the crux of the Lions. In the old days, a good old-fashioned knees-up did the job.

Before the successful 1997 tour to South Africa, which the Lions won 2-1, the squad frequented a local pub near their training base in Hampshire, England.

“That is what won us the series, that week before we got on the plane,” ex-England scrum-half and three-time Lion Matt Dawson told BBC Sport.

“It involved a couple of nights of just sitting in a room with a keg of beer, telling stories, and just getting to know players. That relationship just blossomed as the tour went on.”

Four years later, a more corporate approach to team building was in vogue. After a fitness boot camp, the Lions took part in dragon boat racing, high-wire assault courses, trust-building problem-solving exercises, and playing a variety of musical instruments in a pop-up band.

There were even deep discussion sessions where players were asked to bare their soul. Martyn Williams told of the death of his brother. Dawson discussed a recent relationship break-up.

In 2005, Woodward had his players paint pictures for a giant collage, and perform sketch shows in front of teammates.

Sharing rooms with players from other nations, players’ committees, drawing up codes of conduct known as “Lions laws,” and secondary roles such as entertainments officers also help break the ice.

Motivational speeches before big games and inspirational oratories from coaches help instill Lions lore.

Forwards coach Jim Telfer made a stirring speech in 1997 that is still remembered with reverence.

Among his gems were:

“Many are considered, few are chosen.”

“This is your Everest, boys.”

Head coach Ian McGeechan delivered an equally moving message before the second Test in Durban in 1997.

“You will meet each other in the street in 30 years’ time and there will just be a look and you’ll know just how special some days in your life are.”

Controversy

All part of the fun of a Lions tour is the tittle-tattle that accompanies the circus. It starts with the composition of the squad and is always bubbling in the background.

In theory, the Test team is selected based on form in the warm-up games, but look out for murmurs of discontent from some of the “dirttrackers,” the name given to the players destined only to feature against provincial opposition.

Being a “good tourist” is one of the character traits looked for when initial selection is on a knife-edge. Midweek captain Donal Lenihan’s “Doughnuts” in 1989 were an example of a midweek side who knuckled down, won their matches and admirably supported the Test team.

The 1993 dirt-trackers were reportedly less disciplined and “went off tour,” arguably to the detriment of the Test squad.

Modern attrition rates, however, mean injuries are more prevalent. Often the eventual Test team bears little resemblance to most people’ s picks before the tour.

In 2001, Dawson got into trouble for a newspaper column he wrote criticizing the regime which was published in the Daily Telegraph on the morning of the first Test. He was nearly sent home, although captain Martin Johnson said if Dawson went, he would go too.

Later in the tour, Austin Healey found himself in hot water with a ghost-written column laying into Australia and lock Justin Harrison, calling him a “plod” and a “plank.”

On the ill-fated New Zealand tour in 2005, one of the charges against Woodward was the decision to appoint former Labour spin doctor Alistair Campbell as communications manager.

Then there is the on-field controversy. Over the years there have been many incidents of home sides attempting to take out key Lions.

Notable examples include Australian Duncan McRae pummeling Ronan O’Gara, who needed 11 stitches in his face, in 2001 and the double spear tackle on Brian O’Driscoll by All Blacks Tana Umaga and Keven Mealamu in 2005.

The most notorious tales come from the 1974 tour to South Africa and the infamous “99” call, devised by Lions captain Willie John McBride.

The idea was that if one Lions player was on the receiving end of illegal brutality, the shout would be a signal for everyone else to join the fray.

According to McBride, it was only used once, in a bad-tempered midweek game against Eastern Province. The mayhem lasted seconds, but the Lions had made their point.

When word got out the myth grew. The message was that these guys were not to be messed with.

Even so, the third Test in Port Elizabeth was dubbed the “Battle of Boet Erasmus Stadium” after a series of all-in brawls.

Lions in numbers

70,000 ($88,000) — The reported wage for playing on the 2017 Lions tour. Win bonuses for Test matches could take a player’s earnings for the six-week tour to close to 100,000 ($125,000).

17 — Most caps won by a British and Irish Lion, held by Ireland’s Willie John McBride on five tours between 1962-1974.

10 — Number of matches on the 2017 tour, including three Tests.

7 — The Lions will play in seven different cities against eight different opponents.

50,000 — Capacity of Auckland’s Eden Park, the host stadium for the first and third Tests and the midweek game against Auckland Blues.

37 — The All Blacks are on an unbeaten streak of 37 matches against any opposition at Eden Park stretching back to 1994.

4,600,000 — The population of New Zealand.

103,500 — the area, in square miles, of New Zealand spread across the north and south islands.

Fixtures in full

June 3 — Provincial Union XV v Lions — Toll Stadium, Whangarei

June 7 — Blues v Lions — Eden Park, Auckland

June 10 — Crusaders v Lions — AMI Stadium, Christchurch

June 13 — Highlanders v Lions — Forsyth Barr Stadium, Dunedin

June 17 — New Zealand Maori v Lions — International Stadium, Rotorua

June 20 — Chiefs v Lions — Waikato Stadium, Hamilton

June 24 — New Zealand v Lions — First Test, Eden Park, Auckland

June 27 — Hurricanes v Lions — Westpac Stadium, Wellington

July 1 — New Zealand v Lions — Second Test, Westpac Stadium, Wellington

July 8 — New Zealand v Lions — Third Test, Eden Park, Auckland

source http://allofbeer.com/2017/06/28/british-and-irish-lions-tour-2017-all-you-need-to-know/ from All of Beer http://allofbeer.blogspot.com/2017/06/british-and-irish-lions-tour-2017-all.html

0 notes

adambstingus · 7 years

Text

British and Irish Lions tour 2017: All you need to know

(CNN)Four nations, one rugby team. One goal — to win a Test series against the mighty All Blacks of New Zealand.

The 2017 British and Irish Lions tour is approaching, one of the most anticipated events in world rugby.

It happens every four years, and the privileged players to be selected for this summer’s party are set to be announced Wednesday.

Find out all you need to know about the legendary Lions.

What are the British and Irish Lions?

The Lions is a composite squad formed every four years from the cream of players from England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland.

They rotate tours around the southern hemisphere’s big three rugby union nations — Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

The Lions concept grew out of combined British and Irish touring rugby sides from 1888.

For hordes of traveling fans dressed in the team’s replica red shirts, a Lions tour is a huge multinational jamboree.

Where are the Lions going in 2017?

New Zealand, land of the Long White Cloud. Land of the All Blacks.

The famous Kiwi side is the no.1 ranked team in the world and in 2015 became the first team to win back-to-back World Cups.

What soccer is to Brazil, rugby is to New Zealand.

Given the Lions is a scratch side coming together every four years, victory is hard to come by.

Canada seals historic Singapore Sevens title

Replay

More Videos …

MUST WATCH

In 11 Lions tours to New Zealand stretching back to 1904 (the first six tours were to both New Zealand and Australia), the visitors have triumphed once, a 2-1 victory in 1971.

On their last visit in 2005 the Lions suffered a 3-0 “blackwash.”

In all there have been 38 Tests between New Zealand and the Lions, with the Kiwis winning 29.

Four years ago in Australia, the Lions won the three-Test series 2-1, the first victory since 1997.

This time there will be seven warm-up games against provincial opposition and three Tests against the All Blacks, between June 3 and July 9.

See below for full fixture list.

READ: Hong Kong Sevens — rugby’s biggest party?

Squad

The squad of about 37 players will be named on April 19 in London. The identity of the captain will also be revealed by head coach Warren Gatland �� the New Zealander is the Wales coach on a sabbatical for his second stint with the Lions.