DV
Alex Forsyth, reporter on BBC News is explaining now that Khan should have taken office today (Saturday) but now cannot until tomorrow at the earliest, as the declaration came after midnight.
Sadiq Khan not officially Mayor of London until 12am on 8th May 2016.
Alex Forsyth, reporter on BBC News is explaining now that Khan should have taken office today (Saturday) but now cannot until tomorrow at the earliest, as the declaration came after midnight.
LL
Alex Forsyth, reporter on BBC News is explaining now that Khan should have taken office today (Saturday) but now cannot until tomorrow at the earliest, as the declaration came after midnight.
Faisal Islam did the same on Sky News.
London Lite
Founding member
Sadiq Khan not officially Mayor of London until 12am on 8th May 2016.
Alex Forsyth, reporter on BBC News is explaining now that Khan should have taken office today (Saturday) but now cannot until tomorrow at the earliest, as the declaration came after midnight.
Faisal Islam did the same on Sky News.
DT
I agree that all the graphics were on Maitlis' screen it would be much better. Vine's sections add little to the overall coverage and come across a tad patronising. They very much scream we can do it so we have - the touch screen is much more useful. Also I noticed some poor green screening on the BBC's part when they switched to the House of Commons there were black shadow lines all over the MPs on the right.
Generally, I enjoyed the BBC's coverage (switching to Scotland over Breakfast). I think Huw Edwards was very good and a fitting, if not better replacement for David Dimbleby. He interviewed well, he covered breaking news well and covered well when a few OBs broke down. John Curtice's analysis was also great as always.
I really despise Vine's green space and the way he moves around, along with all the camera changes on the map from one side to another on the floor. A static map would be a whole lot better on a screen, like Maitlis's.
I agree that all the graphics were on Maitlis' screen it would be much better. Vine's sections add little to the overall coverage and come across a tad patronising. They very much scream we can do it so we have - the touch screen is much more useful. Also I noticed some poor green screening on the BBC's part when they switched to the House of Commons there were black shadow lines all over the MPs on the right.
Generally, I enjoyed the BBC's coverage (switching to Scotland over Breakfast). I think Huw Edwards was very good and a fitting, if not better replacement for David Dimbleby. He interviewed well, he covered breaking news well and covered well when a few OBs broke down. John Curtice's analysis was also great as always.
WL
I agree that all the graphics were on Maitlis' screen it would be much better. Vine's sections add little to the overall coverage and come across a tad patronising. They very much scream we can do it so we have - the touch screen is much more useful. Also I noticed some poor green screening on the BBC's part when they switched to the House of Commons there were black shadow lines all over the MPs on the right.
Generally, I enjoyed the BBC's coverage (switching to Scotland over Breakfast). I think Huw Edwards was very good and a fitting, if not better replacement for David Dimbleby. He interviewed well, he covered breaking news well and covered well when a few OBs broke down. John Curtice's analysis was also great as always.
I found the bits with the touch screen rather painful to watch personally. Not particularly Maitlis' fault but pretty much every time I saw the screen being used it was slow to respond to the touches meaning the wrong slide was shown, or not responding at all so she either had to hand back to Huw or try and talk about something else.
I agree that Vine's pieces with the green screen were a bit over the top and slightly condescending but I feel that they were a nice touch and added an element of fun to the coverage, although they could have been executed a bit better.
I really despise Vine's green space and the way he moves around, along with all the camera changes on the map from one side to another on the floor. A static map would be a whole lot better on a screen, like Maitlis's.
I agree that all the graphics were on Maitlis' screen it would be much better. Vine's sections add little to the overall coverage and come across a tad patronising. They very much scream we can do it so we have - the touch screen is much more useful. Also I noticed some poor green screening on the BBC's part when they switched to the House of Commons there were black shadow lines all over the MPs on the right.
Generally, I enjoyed the BBC's coverage (switching to Scotland over Breakfast). I think Huw Edwards was very good and a fitting, if not better replacement for David Dimbleby. He interviewed well, he covered breaking news well and covered well when a few OBs broke down. John Curtice's analysis was also great as always.
I found the bits with the touch screen rather painful to watch personally. Not particularly Maitlis' fault but pretty much every time I saw the screen being used it was slow to respond to the touches meaning the wrong slide was shown, or not responding at all so she either had to hand back to Huw or try and talk about something else.
I agree that Vine's pieces with the green screen were a bit over the top and slightly condescending but I feel that they were a nice touch and added an element of fun to the coverage, although they could have been executed a bit better.
LS
Lou Scannon
Sadiq Khan not officially Mayor of London until 12am on 8th May 2016.
There's no such thing as "12am" (nor, indeed, "12pm").
There's 12midday (a.k.a. 12noon) and there's also 12midnight, neither of which fall within "a.m." or "p.m.".
They stand for "ante meridiem" (Latin for " before midday") and "post meridiem" (Latin for " after midday").
Midday itself is actually, erm, midday. It is neither "before" nor "after" itself. Therefore it is neither "a.m." nor "p.m.".
Here endeth the lesson.
Last edited by Lou Scannon on 9 May 2016 7:03am
MA
There's no such thing as "12am" (nor, indeed, "12pm").
There's 12midday (a.k.a. 12noon) and there's also 12midnight, neither of which fall within "a.m." or "p.m.".
They stand for "ante meridiem" (Latin for " before midday") and "post meridiem" (Latin for " after midday").
Midday itself is actually, erm, midday. It is neither "before" nor "after" itself. Therefore it is neither "a.m." nor "p.m.".
Here endeth the lesson.
Which is probably why insurance certificates etc usually use times such as 23:59hrs and 00:01hrs to avoid
confusion, though I've often wondered whether my car is uninsured for the minute after midnight on changeover day ?
Sadiq Khan not officially Mayor of London until 12am on 8th May 2016.
There's no such thing as "12am" (nor, indeed, "12pm").
There's 12midday (a.k.a. 12noon) and there's also 12midnight, neither of which fall within "a.m." or "p.m.".
They stand for "ante meridiem" (Latin for " before midday") and "post meridiem" (Latin for " after midday").
Midday itself is actually, erm, midday. It is neither "before" nor "after" itself. Therefore it is neither "a.m." nor "p.m.".
Here endeth the lesson.
Which is probably why insurance certificates etc usually use times such as 23:59hrs and 00:01hrs to avoid
confusion, though I've often wondered whether my car is uninsured for the minute after midnight on changeover day ?
SL
There's no such thing as "12am" (nor, indeed, "12pm").
There's 12midday (a.k.a. 12noon) and there's also 12midnight, neither of which fall within "a.m." or "p.m.".
They stand for "ante meridiem" (Latin for " before midday") and "post meridiem" (Latin for " after midday").
Midday itself is actually, erm, midday. It is neither "before" nor "after" itself. Therefore it is neither "a.m." nor "p.m.".
Here endeth the lesson.
But 12am and 12pm are more commonly accepted. Most people get confused that if i said at midnight on Monday 9th May, that was earlier today, whereas a lot think tonight, which technically is Tuesday 10th May 12.00am.
As many people say and use 12am / 12pm then this is also accepted. So Alex, do not worry.
Sadiq Khan not officially Mayor of London until 12am on 8th May 2016.
There's no such thing as "12am" (nor, indeed, "12pm").
There's 12midday (a.k.a. 12noon) and there's also 12midnight, neither of which fall within "a.m." or "p.m.".
They stand for "ante meridiem" (Latin for " before midday") and "post meridiem" (Latin for " after midday").
Midday itself is actually, erm, midday. It is neither "before" nor "after" itself. Therefore it is neither "a.m." nor "p.m.".
Here endeth the lesson.
But 12am and 12pm are more commonly accepted. Most people get confused that if i said at midnight on Monday 9th May, that was earlier today, whereas a lot think tonight, which technically is Tuesday 10th May 12.00am.
As many people say and use 12am / 12pm then this is also accepted. So Alex, do not worry.
RI
There's no such thing as "12am" (nor, indeed, "12pm").
There's 12midday (a.k.a. 12noon) and there's also 12midnight, neither of which fall within "a.m." or "p.m.".
They stand for "ante meridiem" (Latin for " before midday") and "post meridiem" (Latin for " after midday").
Midday itself is actually, erm, midday. It is neither "before" nor "after" itself. Therefore it is neither "a.m." nor "p.m.".
Here endeth the lesson.
But 12am and 12pm are more commonly accepted. Most people get confused that if i said at midnight on Monday 9th May, that was earlier today, whereas a lot think tonight, which technically is Tuesday 10th May 12.00am.
As many people say and use 12am / 12pm then this is also accepted. So Alex, do not worry.
He is right, though. 12am does not exist, but 12:00:01am does. Using the 24-clock might be a solution. Though I did see a temporary roadworks sigh with the time 24:00pm shown on it...
Sadiq Khan not officially Mayor of London until 12am on 8th May 2016.
There's no such thing as "12am" (nor, indeed, "12pm").
There's 12midday (a.k.a. 12noon) and there's also 12midnight, neither of which fall within "a.m." or "p.m.".
They stand for "ante meridiem" (Latin for " before midday") and "post meridiem" (Latin for " after midday").
Midday itself is actually, erm, midday. It is neither "before" nor "after" itself. Therefore it is neither "a.m." nor "p.m.".
Here endeth the lesson.
But 12am and 12pm are more commonly accepted. Most people get confused that if i said at midnight on Monday 9th May, that was earlier today, whereas a lot think tonight, which technically is Tuesday 10th May 12.00am.
As many people say and use 12am / 12pm then this is also accepted. So Alex, do not worry.
He is right, though. 12am does not exist, but 12:00:01am does. Using the 24-clock might be a solution. Though I did see a temporary roadworks sigh with the time 24:00pm shown on it...
DT
There's no such thing as "12am" (nor, indeed, "12pm").
There's 12midday (a.k.a. 12noon) and there's also 12midnight, neither of which fall within "a.m." or "p.m.".
They stand for "ante meridiem" (Latin for " before midday") and "post meridiem" (Latin for " after midday").
Midday itself is actually, erm, midday. It is neither "before" nor "after" itself. Therefore it is neither "a.m." nor "p.m.".
Here endeth the lesson.
But 12am and 12pm are more commonly accepted. Most people get confused that if i said at midnight on Monday 9th May, that was earlier today, whereas a lot think tonight, which technically is Tuesday 10th May 12.00am.
As many people say and use 12am / 12pm then this is also accepted. So Alex, do not worry.
He is right, though. 12am does not exist, but 12:00:01am does. Using the 24-clock might be a solution. Though I did see a temporary roadworks sigh with the time 24:00pm shown on it...
It doesn't exist from legal point of view, but from a common parlance point of view it does. The legal debate though isn't about confusing midday and midnight though, it's about dates - i.e. to avoid confusion as to whether 00:00 on 09/05/2016 is followed by 00:01 09/05/2016 or 00:01 10/05/2016.
Personally, if somebody says 12am to me I know they are referring to midnight and if they say 12pm I know they are referring to midday - while it may confuse some people it is widely recognised. The 59 minutes after midnight are 'am' so surely midnight is to and the 59 minutes after midday are 'pm' so, regardless of the technicalities of what am and pm mean, it follows that logically noon is 12pm.
We shouldn't get hung up on the technicalities of Latin as the terms do not specify after or before in what context and thus to be pedantic and take the Latin literally one would infer that everywhen is both am and pm - in that everywhen is before the next noon and after the previous noon. This is just one of many reasons we created a 24 hour clock so to avoid these debates, but then as you say Richard it only takes one person to start using 24:00 before a new debate ensues.
There's no such thing as "12am" (nor, indeed, "12pm").
There's 12midday (a.k.a. 12noon) and there's also 12midnight, neither of which fall within "a.m." or "p.m.".
They stand for "ante meridiem" (Latin for " before midday") and "post meridiem" (Latin for " after midday").
Midday itself is actually, erm, midday. It is neither "before" nor "after" itself. Therefore it is neither "a.m." nor "p.m.".
Here endeth the lesson.
But 12am and 12pm are more commonly accepted. Most people get confused that if i said at midnight on Monday 9th May, that was earlier today, whereas a lot think tonight, which technically is Tuesday 10th May 12.00am.
As many people say and use 12am / 12pm then this is also accepted. So Alex, do not worry.
He is right, though. 12am does not exist, but 12:00:01am does. Using the 24-clock might be a solution. Though I did see a temporary roadworks sigh with the time 24:00pm shown on it...
It doesn't exist from legal point of view, but from a common parlance point of view it does. The legal debate though isn't about confusing midday and midnight though, it's about dates - i.e. to avoid confusion as to whether 00:00 on 09/05/2016 is followed by 00:01 09/05/2016 or 00:01 10/05/2016.
Personally, if somebody says 12am to me I know they are referring to midnight and if they say 12pm I know they are referring to midday - while it may confuse some people it is widely recognised. The 59 minutes after midnight are 'am' so surely midnight is to and the 59 minutes after midday are 'pm' so, regardless of the technicalities of what am and pm mean, it follows that logically noon is 12pm.
We shouldn't get hung up on the technicalities of Latin as the terms do not specify after or before in what context and thus to be pedantic and take the Latin literally one would infer that everywhen is both am and pm - in that everywhen is before the next noon and after the previous noon. This is just one of many reasons we created a 24 hour clock so to avoid these debates, but then as you say Richard it only takes one person to start using 24:00 before a new debate ensues.
BA
But 12am and 12pm are more commonly accepted. Most people get confused that if i said at midnight on Monday 9th May, that was earlier today, whereas a lot think tonight, which technically is Tuesday 10th May 12.00am.
As many people say and use 12am / 12pm then this is also accepted. So Alex, do not worry.
He is right, though. 12am does not exist, but 12:00:01am does. Using the 24-clock might be a solution. Though I did see a temporary roadworks sigh with the time 24:00pm shown on it...
It doesn't exist from legal point of view, but from a common parlance point of view it does. The legal debate though isn't about confusing midday and midnight though, it's about dates - i.e. to avoid confusion as to whether 00:00 on 09/05/2016 is followed by 00:01 09/05/2016 or 00:01 10/05/2016.
Personally, if somebody says 12am to me I know they are referring to midnight and if they say 12pm I know they are referring to midday - while it may confuse some people it is widely recognised. The 59 minutes after midnight are 'am' so surely midnight is to and the 59 minutes after midday are 'pm' so, regardless of the technicalities of what am and pm mean, it follows that logically noon is 12pm.
We shouldn't get hung up on the technicalities of Latin as the terms do not specify after or before in what context and thus to be pedantic and take the Latin literally one would infer that everywhen is both am and pm - in that everywhen is before the next noon and after the previous noon. This is just one of many reasons we created a 24 hour clock so to avoid these debates, but then as you say Richard it only takes one person to start using 24:00 before a new debate ensues.
24:00 is the ISO standard for indicating midnight at the end of the day.
But 12am and 12pm are more commonly accepted. Most people get confused that if i said at midnight on Monday 9th May, that was earlier today, whereas a lot think tonight, which technically is Tuesday 10th May 12.00am.
As many people say and use 12am / 12pm then this is also accepted. So Alex, do not worry.
He is right, though. 12am does not exist, but 12:00:01am does. Using the 24-clock might be a solution. Though I did see a temporary roadworks sigh with the time 24:00pm shown on it...
It doesn't exist from legal point of view, but from a common parlance point of view it does. The legal debate though isn't about confusing midday and midnight though, it's about dates - i.e. to avoid confusion as to whether 00:00 on 09/05/2016 is followed by 00:01 09/05/2016 or 00:01 10/05/2016.
Personally, if somebody says 12am to me I know they are referring to midnight and if they say 12pm I know they are referring to midday - while it may confuse some people it is widely recognised. The 59 minutes after midnight are 'am' so surely midnight is to and the 59 minutes after midday are 'pm' so, regardless of the technicalities of what am and pm mean, it follows that logically noon is 12pm.
We shouldn't get hung up on the technicalities of Latin as the terms do not specify after or before in what context and thus to be pedantic and take the Latin literally one would infer that everywhen is both am and pm - in that everywhen is before the next noon and after the previous noon. This is just one of many reasons we created a 24 hour clock so to avoid these debates, but then as you say Richard it only takes one person to start using 24:00 before a new debate ensues.
24:00 is the ISO standard for indicating midnight at the end of the day.