Jump to content

Bank of England to face legal action over Churchill on new fivers?


So who should appear instead?  

4 members have voted

  1. 1. So who should appear instead?

    • Unity Mitford
      2
    • Wallis Simpson
      1
    • Mary Tudor
      0
    • Mary Anne Cotton
      1


Recommended Posts

Sizeist.

 

Baldist.

 

And as for being a "bum", have you seen Chartwell?

 

Where do you live to be looking down on a place like that, Xanadu?

 

 

 

 

Surely the Equality Act applies to living people only?

 

If not, this could open up the doors to a awful lot of retroactive lawsuits.

 

 

 

?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women make up over half of the population so your comparisons in this case aren't appropriate.

 

Let me rephrase the question for you then.

 

Is currency, of which only 4 pieces carry images of people (not including the monarch), which are changed every few years, supposed to be truly representative and fair?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me rephrase the question for you then.

 

Axiomatically, yes. Women have been airbrushed, overlooked and written out of history enough as it is, unless they happened to be a monarch or monarch's consort or mistress.

 

I had taken a passing interest in this development until I looked at this thread and after having read the usual round of totally dismissive comments that I would expect on SF, it has radicalised my view.

 

There have been 16 historical figures featured on banknotes since the portraits were introduced in 1970 – including only two women: Florence Nightingale was on the £10 note from 1975 to 1994, and in 2002, Fry was introduced on the £5 note.

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.