Regional Accents and Social Mobility

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regional accents and social mobility.

Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir Roger. The way we speak reveals so much about us. Long before we explain our politics, our profession or our background—the moment we open our mouths—our accents instantly signal a core part of who we are. Accents carry traces of our communities, our upbringing and our lived experience. They are part of our story. I grew up as a working-class woman from Salford, so my accent has always been woven into my identity, just as much as my values or my politics. After more than 20 years of living in Leigh, it has naturally taken on a Lancashire lilt. I say “beltin’” when something is brilliant, “int’ it” when I agree, and “love-leh” instead of “lovely”.

However, what is harder to confront is the pressure that many people feel to change the way they speak in order to progress. Accents can be a barrier, and it is a barrier that not many people speak about. There is a hierarchy of accent prestige deeply rooted in British society, yet we should remind ourselves of a simple truth: everybody has an accent—there is no such thing as speaking without one. What we often describe as a neutral accent is simply an accent that has historically been associated with power and prestige. There is no linguistic basis for ranking accents. No accent is inherently more intelligent, professional, articulate or correct than another. These are social judgments, not linguistic facts.

Our life chances are too often defined by our backgrounds. Those from poorer backgrounds are almost twice as likely to end up in low-paid jobs than those from more privileged backgrounds. Accent bias can then become another barrier to social mobility. Our accent produces a judgment instantly. Often, it happens unconsciously. Research shows that people form impressions from someone’s voice within seconds. People make assumptions about our background, our capability and our education. We often think we are judging competence or professionalism, when in reality we may be responding to deeply ingrained social stereotypes associated with a particular way of speaking. For someone like me, from a northern city, the assumption has sometimes been that I am less intelligent or that I am “rough” or uncultured.

The issue is not how people speak; it is how we respond to how they speak. A Sutton Trust report in 2022 highlighted that less than 10% of the population speak with what is often called the BBC accent, or the Queen’s English, yet it remains the dominant accent in positions of authority. As a result, many young people with different accents worry about the impact of their accent on their career prospects. They think twice before they dream big. Research by Co-op similarly found that many people have been mocked, criticised or singled out because of the way they speak. Together, those studies show how accent is often used as a proxy for social class, leading to unfair assumptions and discrimination.

It is sad to think about the number of young people who have missed out on opportunities because of their accent. Self-consciousness and anxiety about accent bias are highest during university and early professional life, which should be the very moment when ambition grows, rather than shrinks. They see their peers at university succeed, but they themselves may feel held back. I challenge anyone to watch the UK Youth Parliament in action and not feel energised by hearing young people from every corner of the UK speaking confidently in their own voices. The answer is not to talk their accents out of them; it is to talk our biases out of ourselves.

Accent diversity is part of Britain’s cultural richness; it is not a problem to be solved. In a country with such a remarkable variety of accents in a relatively small geographical space, our linguistic diversity should be celebrated as part of our national heritage. I admit that there was a time when I wondered whether softening my accent might make me sound more credible, more professional, more Westminster and less Salford. Even in my first marketing job as an apprentice in central Manchester, I worried that the way I spoke could limit my prospects so I toned my accent down. My friends used to say, “Why have you changed your voice? Why are you speaking like that?” That experience reflects research showing that many people change the way they speak when applying for jobs.

Of course, all of us naturally adapt aspects of how we speak depending on who we are talking to or the setting we are in: our telephone voice or when we speak here in the Chamber—we all do it. That is entirely normal. The problem comes when people feel pressure to change the way they speak not out of choice but because they fear prejudice, exclusion or lost opportunities. Before I arrived in Westminster, I worried about whether I would fit in. After all, many of the politicians occupying the highest offices of state have rarely sounded like me—with notable exceptions, of course, such as our Secretary of State for Education and our great Speaker, whose Lancashire voice is heard loud and proud in this place every day. The more time I have spent in Parliament, the more I realise that beneath the public image lies an increasingly diverse collection of accents, backgrounds and life experiences.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

I am sure I’ll be using a slightly different accent this evening when watching the football—a few expletives might come out as I shout at the TV. Does my hon. Friend agree that a part of public life is being authentic? One way to build trust and authenticity is to just be ourselves. That is important for diversity and, as she says, for our national culture.

[Jo Platt]

I cannot agree more with that statement; I think we are grasping that more and more. We do not have to come from the places we represent—I do not—but representing our communities does matter and it is about being ourselves. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Colleagues across both Houses are proud of where they come from and of the voices that reflect that, and we should celebrate that diversity. But let us not pretend that the battle has been won. The way my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has been mocked and criticised for how she speaks demonstrates that accent prejudice remains alive and well in our politics. If somebody can reach one of the highest offices in the land and still face those attitudes, there is clearly lots more work to do.

My experience has shaped my interest in how regional accents influence people’s opportunities and representation. That is why I was delighted to host a parliamentary drop-in session for the Westminster Voices project and to support the important research being led by Professor Rob Drummond of Manchester Metropolitan University and Dr Amanda Cole of the University of Cambridge. I pay tribute to them both for leading the conversation on this. The turnout was exceptional. Every MP, peer and member of staff who attended had their own story about their accent, background and journey into Westminster. All that is why I felt it important to hold a debate on this issue today, because we all have a story to tell.

We should be clear: communication skills and accent are not the same thing. We should judge people on what they say and how effectively they communicate, not how closely they sound like an outdated idea of professionalism. That applies in Westminster and in the rest of the country. Action to tackle accent bias should be recognised as an important diversity issue. That means tackling bias through training, research and a greater appreciation of accent diversity in workplaces and education. The recent Commission on the Future of Oracy Education in England made an important point: communication is not about sounding a particular way. Every child should develop the confidence to communicate effectively in their own authentic voice.

Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; I will deal with AI sovereignty a bit later in my speech.

We should ensure that, like a socialist Government’s approach to energy or water, the public have a stake in the development of AI technology, to ensure that the value it creates is captured and shared for the good of society as a whole. Previous waves of technological change have brought with them huge economic disruptions, but the human and social costs that followed were not inevitable. They were the product of political choices, as Governments left workers and communities to absorb the shocks alone.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

The last time we saw a change of such potential scale was when we moved from being a manufacturing economy to being more of a service economy. There were trade-offs at that time, and some people, cities, towns and villages were left behind—including in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that on this occasion we can plan because we know it is coming? We need to be thinking about jobs, access and skills for younger people, and ensuring that the benefits are felt right the way across the country and not just clustered in one place.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point about no place being left behind as a result of the AI revolution. I will develop that point a later. We can already see the first signs of AI impacting on work here. We have record numbers of young people not in employment, education or training because many entry-level jobs have disappeared.

UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK aid policy in the context of global funding trends.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this vital and timely debate. We are effectively about to have a change of Government, which will mean an opportunity for a reset. Usually we come to these debates avid to hear what the Minister has to say, but today we might not reflect on the past so much as look to the future. Of course, I commend the Minister for his efforts. I will not commend him too much, because that might not help him in the weeks ahead as the Government are reformed, but I acknowledge his personal commitment to these issues.

As the Prime Minister moves on, the cuts in official development assistance and the way in which they have been carried out, with nothing seemingly learned from the lessons of the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, surely cannot be part of his legacy that he will wish to promote. Notably, this Government are presiding over cuts to our overseas aid budget that are deeper and faster than those being implemented in the United States under the Trump Administration. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s resource DEL budget has reduced by nearly 20%, over £1.5 billion, with bilateral programmes accounting for almost half of that and no detail yet available. Indeed, stakeholders are still waiting for the FCDO to publish its bilateral allocations for ODA, which are reportedly being held back until just before the summer recess.

I do not demur from the arguments about hard choices when there are limited resources or, specifically, the need to increase defence spending, but part of that is also about acknowledging that these decisions have consequences, often for the poorest and most vulnerable communities on the planet.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

I am the chair of the water, sanitation and hygiene all-party parliamentary group and a big champion of WaterAid’s “Time to Deliver” campaign. One million mums and babies lose their lives each year because of a lack of access to water during childbirth. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in looking at humanitarian and global aid, we should make sure that remains a basic provision and a priority?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely do. I will come on to the most effective way in which limited resources can be used, and that is clearly one of them.

We need to have honesty in this debate and acknowledge that reductions and changes in funding have consequences. We must have that honest dialogue and move away from the sort of speak that has become commonplace, such as “mainstreaming”. Everything now is to be mainstreamed. In my view that means no resources will actually be devoted to it; it will simply be part of some wider general budget. That has specifically been the case in relation to women and girls, which is something we must push back against.

National Accident Prevention Strategy

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a national accident prevention strategy.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Today, I want to draw the House’s attention to what can only be described as a silent and spiralling crisis in our country: the devastating human cost of preventable accidents. This is not a new issue, but it is getting worse and, crucially, it is still not given the level of sustained national attention that its scale demands. Too often, people think of accidents as tragic misfortune, but they are often ordinary moments: a fall at home, a collision on the road, an accident at work, a lapse in safety in a familiar environment.

Every Member here will recognise the pattern: we hear it in our advice surgeries, we receive the letters and we take the calls. We meet parents who have lost children, spouses who have lost partners and children who have lost a parent in circumstances that are sudden, awful and preventable. Towards the end of last year, following two road fatalities in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield in our community over the course of a week and the drowning of a teenager in Sutton park, I had the valuable experience of meeting a long-standing resident of Royal Sutton Coldfield, Becky Hickman, who is the chief executive officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and has championed accident prevention at the national level for over 20 years. Indeed, she is in the Public Gallery today.

One of those horrific accidents took place on Friday 22 August last year, when, tragically, 21-year-old Natasha Thorp was struck by a car on Brassington Avenue in my constituency and died shortly afterwards. I have had the privilege of getting to know her family a little and of joining Natasha’s father and other members of her family at the recent installation of a memorial bench in Sutton Park overlooking Blackroot pool. It is hard to describe the life-changing trauma they have suffered, but they are not alone.

RoSPA and I welcome the Department for Transport’s new road safety strategy, but it is a small part of a much bigger issue and strategy. Road traffic accidents are sadly not isolated events, and accidental deaths and injuries do not only happen on the roads. Tragedies can occur at home, at work and when out in open spaces.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

One of the gaps that we consistently see is in water safety, where interventions are often reactive rather than preventive. Following the tragic death of a young boy in a reservoir local to me in Yorkshire, I have been working on Sam’s law and with organisations such as RoSPA, the Royal Life Saving Society, and the fire and rescue services to develop a clear, risk-based approach for water safety, including guidance on when and how lifesaving equipment should be provided. Does the right hon. Member agree that the national accident prevention strategy must bring together those kinds of organisations, which have the experience and knowledge to make sure that these sorts of incidents never happen again?

[Sir Andrew Mitchell]

As the hon. Member will see as I develop my speech, I very much agree with him.

In Birmingham, we have the seventh highest number of accidental deaths in England. Each year, more than 550 families in our city lose a loved one due to a preventable accident. That is more than one death every day. Across the west midlands, more than 2,000 people annually die due to accidents, the equivalent of wiping out a small village year after year. Nationally, there has been an 8% rise in accidental death rates and a 3% increase in hospital admissions in just one year. Over the past decade, accidental death rates have risen by more than 40%. That is not a blip, a statistical anomaly or a short-term fluctuation; it is a serious problem that has been brushed under the carpet for too long.

There is a wider national cost to this issue. Accidents place a significant and growing burden on the national health service. Every preventable injury that results in an emergency admission adds pressure to already stretched A&E departments, ambulance services and hospital wards. We are talking about millions of bed days every year linked to accident-related admissions. Accidents now are believed to cost us at least £6 billion annually in NHS medical care. The impact on NHS staff is also profound. Doctors, nurses, paramedics and support staff are dealing daily with injuries and emergencies that in many cases could have been prevented. That is not only a clinical challenge, but a human one, placing additional strain on a workforce who are already under great pressure.

The burden extends across the economy. When people are injured, they are often unable to work—sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. Families lose income; employers lose skilled workers; productivity falls. The country loses millions of working days each year due to accident-related absence. The combined cost to UK business is now estimated at about £6 billion every year.

Taken together, this represents a hidden but substantial cost to the country—to our health service, economy and public finances. The truth is that we can do better. Indeed, we have done better before. We know what works: safer homes, stronger product standards, effective public awareness campaigns, improved design of public spaces, better data collection, and co-ordinated action across Government and local agencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for securing this debate. I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government. I offer my condolences to all those affected by the incidents in his constituency that he mentioned, including Natasha’s family and friends. I pay tribute to him for raising awareness of this important issue.

As the right hon. Gentleman rightly suggests, it is not unreasonable to expect to be able to go about our everyday lives without the fear or risk of accidents. The impact on individuals and their families and friends can be devastating. I share his view that we should collectively act to address those risks.

As the Minister responsible for road safety, I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman’s interest in the lead-up to the publication of the road safety strategy earlier this year. He has a track record of making the case for effective safety measures in his constituency and beyond. That is of course to his great credit.

I am particularly struck by the fact that we are here on International Workers’ Memorial Day. Too many people are killed or injured as a result of their work, and it is apt that we are discussing this issue on a day when we are remembering those killed in workplace incidents. We must recommit to fight for a safer future for the living.

As the right hon. Gentleman noted, accident prevention cuts across several areas and the responsibilities of many Departments. Within my ambit, it means road traffic collision prevention. More widely, accident prevention impacts home safety, safety in the workplace, product safety, building safety, safety in childcare, sickness prevention and much more.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke movingly about the incident that we have all heard about as constituency Members. The Government clearly recognise the importance of prevention, protecting lives, promoting good health and ensuring that public services are not called upon when they do not need to be. Several hon. Members have talked about the impact of accidents on our economy and the national health service. It is the first job of Government to keep the British people safe. I know that colleagues in all Departments are taking measures to ensure our approach to accident prevention is as strong as it can be.

With that in mind, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will allow me the opportunity to speak first about the work of my own Department. This country has some of the safest roads in the world, but years of complacency have allowed our road safety record to slip. Around four people die on our roads every single day—lives taken too soon, lives altered beyond recognition and lives grieved by families left behind.

Language and terminology matter to victims of road traffic collisions. Since 2022, other than when required by specific legislation, the Department for Transport has used the term “collision” in relation to road traffic crashes, because the term “accident” can imply that events are unavoidable or without fault. We know that the vast majority of incidents on our roads are preventable.

Earlier this year, my Department published the new road safety strategy, because we believe that road traffic collisions are preventable. Our strategy sets out how we intend to deal with the root causes of collisions. We have set out our vision for safer roads for all, including ambitious targets to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured by 65%—70% for children—by 2035. Rooted in innovation and underpinned by the safe system approach, our strategy recognises that although driver error is inevitable, deaths and serious injuries on our roads are not.

The strategy outlines concrete steps to better support road users, including consultations. Five consultations were published alongside the road safety strategy, on minimum learning periods, lower drink-drive limits and mandatory eyesight testing. I make no apology for consulting, because since we are publishing the first road safety strategy in a generation, we must take the time to get it right. It is right that we have set out in those consultations what we intend to do, but also that we listen very carefully to how best to make those changes. I want to see progress—I will be chairing a national road safety board to ensure the implementation of the strategy—and of course I want to see those numbers going down, as we have set ambitious targets for what we want to achieve over the next decade, but I do not think it was wrong to consult on them.

The strategy commits to harnessing technology, data and innovation to improve the safety of vehicles and infrastructure. It sets out a strengthened approach to enforcement, putting penalties under review and considering new powers to suspend licences. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) rightly raised the potential of those new technologies, including AI, but he also highlighted the importance of getting that technology right, including automated vehicles. They have a huge potential, as we know that driver error is such an important contributory factor in many road traffic collisions. The ability to remove the potential for driver error with an automated vehicle is there, but we must make sure that the technology is as reliable as a careful and competent driver. That is why we have the piloting of the automated vehicles but with a safety driver in place at the moment.

What applies to road safety as much as any other area of accident prevention is the importance of collective effort. We rely on partnerships with local authorities, industry, emergency services, charities, stakeholders and communities. In transport, we recognise the importance of a just culture, recognising that humans do make mistakes, systems can fail, safety improves when people are honest, and learning means more than blame. In aviation, rail and maritime, we have the accident investigation branches. They are not there to apportion blame or liability. Their focus is investigating serious incidents to ensure that we can learn from them and prevent reoccurrence.

Accident prevention must be a call to action, not just a new policy or a set of regulations. Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of “THINK!”, the Government’s flagship road safety campaign, which aims to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads in England and Wales. It seeks to change attitudes and behaviours among those at risk, and it is a good example of the importance of public awareness campaigning.

I pay tribute to all those individuals, organisations, campaigners and response teams who make such a difference to lives across the country, both by raising awareness of those most at risk of harm and by standing ready and responding night and day to help people in danger. I am thinking of our lifeboat responders, our mountain rescue teams and many others.

In housing safety—I think the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned this—the Government are taking various actions to improve safety and accident prevention. The decent homes standard is one of several new and updated measures to improve quality in the private rented sector. That includes Awaab’s law, which requires landlords to address issues of damp and mould within stricter timeframes—not accidents, but ill health caused by living in unsafe conditions. There are also new fines for landlords whose properties contain serious hazards.

Action is being taken on all 58 recommendations from the Grenfell inquiry report, and that is intended to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system in the wake of that tragedy. We will never forget those taken too soon, or the impact that will still be felt every day by their loved ones.

In December, the Government published the single construction regulator prospectus and consultation document, laying out plans for regulatory reform to integrate the regulation of buildings, products and professions. That followed the appointment of an expert panel to help guide the Building Safety Regulator-led review of the building regulations guidance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) both mentioned the dangers around rivers, canals, lakes and the sea. It takes a real collective effort by emergency services and volunteers to deliver search and rescue services, and the Government have made tangible progress in recent years to support voluntary organisations. In the recent Budget, a vehicle excise duty exemption was announced for mountain rescue, lowland rescue, cave rescue, independent lifeboats and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. That reflects a clear recognition of the public value of search and rescue volunteers and the practical costs they bear in carrying out their work. They also do important work making people aware of those dangers as part of that prevention agenda.

I was saddened to read in the annual review of RoSPA, to which I will refer in a moment, that alcohol-related deaths have increased by 5% following a period of relative stability. Those include accidents caused by exposure or poisoning. All such deaths are a tragedy. The Government have committed to help people make healthier choices about alcohol, and we are working towards legal requirements for alcohol labels to display health warnings and consistent nutritional information.

To better support people experiencing harmful drinking and alcohol dependence, we published the first ever UK clinical guidelines on alcohol treatment to drive improvements in treatment provision. Our extensive programme of implementation support for the guidelines has been positively received by commissioners and providers, and we continue to work across Government to consider further measures to reduce the negative impact alcohol has on health inequalities, crime and the economy. The same could be said of some drug use, which is also a major cause of accidents and poisonings.

When it comes to health, it is worth speaking about falls. Falls accounted for almost half of all fatal accidents in the UK in 2023, and 59% of all accident-related hospital admissions in 2023-24, making them by far the largest single category of accidental harm. That is against a long-term backdrop of falls fatalities increasing by 81% between 2013 and 2022.

There is hope, however, and again it comes to technology. Emerging evidence from Government-funded independent evaluations indicates that falls technologies can reduce falls in care homes by between 37% and 49%, as well as reducing hospital admissions and freeing up staff time. In the next year, the Government will set new national standards for care technologies and produce trusted guidance so that people can confidently buy and use technology that supports them or the people they care for. The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked some important questions about social care, and I will ensure that she receives a written response to those questions.

Let me move on to workplace safety. The Government’s Employment Rights Act 2025 is an important step towards delivering the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Ensuring statutory sick pay from day one will reduce the risk of presenteeism, a key risk in operational environments when people are at work but unwell. Limits on non-disclosure agreements will enable learning from incidents instead of silencing them. Reducing zero-hours working will ensure greater predictability in work patterns, reducing fatigue, working alone or rushed work. The creation of the Fair Work Agency will provide better protection for whistleblowers, reinforcing a strong safety culture in our workplaces.

Making it easier for trade unions to organise ensures that more workplaces benefit from health and safety representatives and the vital work that they do. I pay tribute to trade unionists across the country who are health and safety representatives. I know at first hand the incredible work they do to keep workplaces safe.

[Lee Pitcher]

As the Minister mentioned, it is International Workers’ Memorial Day, and trade unions have been here today to make sure we raise awareness of it. This year’s theme is the psychosocial interventions required to support workers and mental health. Will she take the opportunity to remember those we have lost at work, to promote to employers the implementation of strong mental health interventions at work and to raise awareness to prevent lives being lost?

Community-owned Assets: Government Support

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

Absolutely. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, who is completely right. We have seen many campaigns to keep local pubs open, and we have seen local people working hard to deliver a community asset designation, but they have often lacked the finance. I hope that the new measures coming through will start to deal with that, particularly the right to buy and other measures. I would also mention the community wealth fund and the Pride in Place programme. They all aim to tackle the inequalities, the lack of social infrastructure, including physical social infrastructure, and of course economic deprivation. Too often, as in the case of the UPP, we see a David and Goliath situation for communities that want to control local assets.

In conclusion, I urge the Minister, first, to co-ordinate policy on community assets with other Departments, so that we can truly unlock their promise. Secondly, I urge her to work with Culture, Media and Sport Ministers and Education and Skills Ministers to encourage place-based collaboration between arts and cultural organisations and higher education providers.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

The UPP sounds like an absolute cultural gem, and I love anything to do with arts and culture, as a former chair of an arts and culture organisation. The Government have launched the town of culture programme, which will be an amazing way to bring people together. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a positive step forward, and will she get behind Bawtry being the first town of culture in the country?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very fond of my hon. Friend, but I know many other Members are pushing for their amazing towns to become the town of culture. I agree with him that the programme is an exciting new development, as is what we are seeing in community ownership, and the engagement with arts and culture.

My third ask of the Minister is that she comes to the Ultimate Picture Palace and experiences the magic of cinema. She will find a friendly welcome, lovely drinks and snacks, and a dedicated team of staff and volunteers. If she comes, she will experience what promoters of the cinema said it would deliver when it was built right back in 1911: “Real fun and instruction”, in a beautiful building. Long live community cinema, and long live the Ultimate Picture Palace!