Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.
Most works of culture have ideology of one kind of another embedded in them. People only tend to notice when the ideology runs counter to their own, or when it is done in a clumsy way. It would probably be wise to watch the programme in question before passing judgement.
This is true. However it's also very important to bear in mind that literature and many cultural forms are not *only* ideology. This is one of the main things I learnt, as someone who remains and still broadly perceives myself a left liberal, from an exhaustive university degree at the height of a period for ideological fashion.
Agree 100%. Very little good art is overtly ideological in my view. Nineteen Eighty Four or the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists are some exceptions that spring to mind.
And 'Power in the Darkness' by the Tom Robinson band.
And Killing In The Name by Rage Against the Machine.
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
Surely it was obvious that the committee would be asking how many people were working and when?
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
On the definition yes. However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.
I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.
Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.
I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
You are conflating a public service with a public good.
I’m really not.
The text book definition of a public good is that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, and the classic example given is public service broadcasting (presuming that broadcasting is free to air).
If the BBC ever went to a subscription only service it would no longer be a public good.
The fact that it can be a subscription service is what makes it excludable. And therefore fails the definition of being a public good.
Eh?
I can put a gate on the park up the road, too. That possibility doesn’t stop it being an example of a public good.
"National parks are not pure public goods." Turner, Journal of Economic Education, Vol 33, 2002.
Whose national parks? Are you arguing we also abolish national parks now?
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
On the definition yes. However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.
I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.
Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.
I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
You are conflating a public service with a public good.
I’m really not.
The text book definition of a public good is that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, and the classic example given is public service broadcasting (presuming that broadcasting is free to air).
If the BBC ever went to a subscription only service it would no longer be a public good.
The fact that it can be a subscription service is what makes it excludable. And therefore fails the definition of being a public good.
Eh?
I can put a gate on the park up the road, too. That possibility doesn’t stop it being an example of a public good.
Public good doesn't mean it's something for the common good. It literally just means non-excludable and non-rivalrous. So the BBC does not meet the first test, no matter how much you think it's a great thing, just because it meets the 2nd test.
It must be throwing out hour at the Cretin and Duck.
I was barred from there for my drunken philosophy.
I think the BBC should be a public good (no license fee), but I appreciate that would make it difficult to retain independence from Gov.
Also strip out all the stuff that would work for a commercial channel (like strictly).
There is no reason for Strictly to be on the BBC. It is probably the most commercially viable programme in the country.
The BBC should be there for programmes which would not be commercially viable. I think the quality of documentaries on the BBC has declined quite dramatically. For example there used to be a constant stream of decent historical documentaries, C4 and C5 now both have better content. If I had more time I would get a subscription to HistoryHit.
Remove the likes of Strictly and its most popular programmes then the BBC would be the equivalent of PBS in the US. An entirely license fee or tax funded broadcaster making highbrow programmes with a fraction of its current audience but still no adverts which would help fund the likes of Strictly license or taxpayer free
Yes, and once the audience starts to decline there will be the usual calls to scrap it because no one watches it anymore. It's a vicious circle. The BBC took a hell of a chance building on a moribund product from the 50s called "Come Dancing" I suspect none of the commercial channels would have touched it.
I am always intrigued by the argument that the BBC shouldn't have anything popular or profitable on it. Suppose that was mandatory. What if they accidentally commissioned a roaring, worldwide success? Would that be grounds for all concerned to be dismissed?
A happy consequence of good programmes could be profit overseas which would be reinvested in even better news, documentaries, and so on in the UK. I just don't think profit or ratings should be the main objective.
It would be tricky working out what kind of programming wouldn't work on a domestic commercial basis, I grant you. There would also be exceptions like the FA cup final.
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
It is mind boggling and really does indicate the civil service is not fit for purpose
Mr. Boy, good TV should ask questions not preach the truth its creators have deemed to be undeniable.
In Genesis of the Daleks, Tom Baker struggles at the moment when he has the power to obliterate them forever, observing that it would then make him guilty of genocide and questioning if he has the moral authority to do it.
Meanwhile, New Who has all of time and space to play with but can't stop with identity politics and buggering up the lore. It's petty.
(As an aside, this isn't just a problem with recent series, although that's when it's become worst. The fanboyish approach to the Doctor which made him the Best Thing Ever rather than a sound fellow trying his best was apparent right from the start, and the conceit of the Time War pointlessly locked away the Timelords and created the need for a continuous set of excuses for how some daleks were still about. Then we have Capaldi's Doctor in oddly multicultural Victorian England claiming history is a whitewash).
Since neither of us has watched the programme in question why don't we reconvene once we have seen it? Good drama shouldn't be overly didactic or hectoring. But it seems to me that a programme about an upper class Victorian Englishman who travels round the world (much of it the Empire) for a bet is inevitably going to touch upon issues relating to imperialism, race etc. And a programme that chose not to have anything overt to say on those issues would be every bit as ideological as one that did. Besides, a joint UK-US production that will be aimed at global syndication would always have to take a somewhat questioning approach to the British Empire. It may surprise you to learn, but not all of our former subjects have happy memories of the enterprise...
I thought they missed some potential to have fun in Bridgeton - make it turn out that the Duke had built ((re-built) his family fortune in the sugar trade.....
I've only watched the first episode of Bridgerton and I found the dialogue really clunky, although I liked it more than a lot of other costume dramas, such as the utterly awful (and highly ideological) Downton Abbey. Does it improve?
No idea - the trauma of watching the first ten minutes caused me to run away to a remote South East Asian rain forest where I recruited the local tribesmen into a fearful cannibal army and deliver weird soliloquies in the rain.
AIUI there weren't many, if any, cannibals in SE Asia. Polynesia, yes. Central America yes. Also Cheddar Gorge. Possibly
Strabo said the the people of Ireland were cannibals but that, not having been there himself, he couldn't be sure.
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
Surely it was obvious that the committee would be asking how many people were working and when?
Well, yes. AK made the point that the only acceptable answer would be Don't be so bloody silly, as if such a thing would ever happen. Not We'll get back to you.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
On the definition yes. However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.
I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.
Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
So it's a subscription service then? In which case, why the constant moaning about it from many quarters?
Yes it is a subscription service and not a public good.
The constant moaning is because it is against the law to watch other services like Sky Sports, ITV or Channel 4 for instance without paying the BBC subscription fee. It is as if saying you could not subscribe to Disney unless you also subscribe to Netflix, by law.
There are many public good public service broadcasters that meet the textbook definition around the world. Any public broadcaster that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous meets the definition. As much as Gardenwalker wants to mislead about it, the BBC is not one of those broadcasters since it is legally excludable.
The BBC is a public good.
BBC TV and iplayer is a variation of that - in that it's not quite a subscription service. You need to pay for a TV license to watch any other live visual transmission not just the BBC.
I am always intrigued by the argument that the BBC shouldn't have anything popular or profitable on it. Suppose that was mandatory. What if they accidentally commissioned a roaring, worldwide success? Would that be grounds for all concerned to be dismissed?
Don’t be intrigued.
The argument is a mendacious attempt to close down the BBC because some people don’t want to pay taxes for it. But rather than say that, they try various specious side arguments.
If it was funded by taxes and open to all it would actually be a public good.
It isn't though. Its a corporation that is only legally allowed to be watch via its subscribers, but people are legally obliged to subscribe to it even if they want to only watch other subscriptions like Sky Sports.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
On the definition yes. However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.
I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.
Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.
I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
You are conflating a public service with a public good.
I’m really not.
The text book definition of a public good is that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, and the classic example given is public service broadcasting (presuming that broadcasting is free to air).
If the BBC ever went to a subscription only service it would no longer be a public good.
The fact that it can be a subscription service is what makes it excludable. And therefore fails the definition of being a public good.
Eh?
I can put a gate on the park up the road, too. That possibility doesn’t stop it being an example of a public good.
"National parks are not pure public goods." Turner, Journal of Economic Education, Vol 33, 2002.
Whose national parks? Are you arguing we also abolish national parks now?
We shouldn't have to pay an annual fee to a Dartmoor National Park just to visit Alton Towers.
Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.
Most works of culture have ideology of one kind of another embedded in them. People only tend to notice when the ideology runs counter to their own, or when it is done in a clumsy way. It would probably be wise to watch the programme in question before passing judgement.
This is true. However it's also very important to bear in mind that literature and many cultural forms are not *only* ideology. This is one of the main things I learnt, as someone who remains and still broadly perceives myself a left liberal, from an exhaustive university degree at the height of a period for ideological fashion.
Agree 100%. Very little good art is overtly ideological in my view. Nineteen Eighty Four or the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists are some exceptions that spring to mind.
And 'Power in the Darkness' by the Tom Robinson band.
And Killing In The Name by Rage Against the Machine.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
On the definition yes. However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.
I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.
Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
So it's a subscription service then? In which case, why the constant moaning about it from many quarters?
Yes it is a subscription service and not a public good.
The constant moaning is because it is against the law to watch other services like Sky Sports, ITV or Channel 4 for instance without paying the BBC subscription fee. It is as if saying you could not subscribe to Disney unless you also subscribe to Netflix, by law.
There are many public good public service broadcasters that meet the textbook definition around the world. Any public broadcaster that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous meets the definition. As much as Gardenwalker wants to mislead about it, the BBC is not one of those broadcasters since it is legally excludable.
The BBC is a public good.
BBC TV and iplayer is a variation of that - in that it's not quite a subscription service. You need to pay for a TV license to watch any other live visual transmission not just the BBC.
If you need a licence to watch it, then its excludable and thus not a public good.
BBC Radio is a public good, since that is non-excludable.
I am always intrigued by the argument that the BBC shouldn't have anything popular or profitable on it. Suppose that was mandatory. What if they accidentally commissioned a roaring, worldwide success? Would that be grounds for all concerned to be dismissed?
Don’t be intrigued.
The argument is a mendacious attempt to close down the BBC because some people don’t want to pay taxes for it. But rather than say that, they try various specious side arguments.
If it was funded by taxes and open to all it would actually be a public good.
It isn't though. Its a corporation that is only legally allowed to be watch via its subscribers, but people are legally obliged to subscribe to it even if they want to only watch other subscriptions like Sky Sports.
Still wrong. And you personal beef also has no bearing on the question.
Move on to more comfortable territory for you, like your claim that all houses should be built with enough parking for 2.5 cars.
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
Surely it was obvious that the committee would be asking how many people were working and when?
This seems to be very similar to the huge problems that my company now has dealing with people working from home for Local Authorities etc. All previous protocals & procedures that were in place have all disappeared. It is impossible to get hold of anyone and there are huge delays in everything. WFH in the Public Sector simply does not work.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
On the definition yes. However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.
I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.
Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.
I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
You are conflating a public service with a public good.
I’m really not.
The text book definition of a public good is that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, and the classic example given is public service broadcasting (presuming that broadcasting is free to air).
If the BBC ever went to a subscription only service it would no longer be a public good.
I agree with you on your definition, but not the example (cos license fee).
At uni I was given stuff like parks, clean air, as best examples.
If you think of the LF as a tax this objection falls away. And it is pretty close to being a tax.
FCDO's Afghanistan Director Nigel Casey unable to say whether his crisis centre in London was manned by a night shift over two different nights of the evacuation, August 22 + 23. Will only say a night shift "was rostered". Whistleblower claims civil servants refused to come in. https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1468250647208284160
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
Apparently Philip Barton, the top civil servant (Permanent Under-Secretary) in the FCDO, has admitted to the Committee that he was on holiday at the time and only returned to work 11 days after Kabul fell. That's astonishing. Remind me, who was his boss?
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
On the definition yes. However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.
I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.
Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.
I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
You are conflating a public service with a public good.
I’m really not.
The text book definition of a public good is that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, and the classic example given is public service broadcasting (presuming that broadcasting is free to air).
If the BBC ever went to a subscription only service it would no longer be a public good.
The fact that it can be a subscription service is what makes it excludable. And therefore fails the definition of being a public good.
Eh?
I can put a gate on the park up the road, too. That possibility doesn’t stop it being an example of a public good.
"National parks are not pure public goods." Turner, Journal of Economic Education, Vol 33, 2002.
Whose national parks? Are you arguing we also abolish national parks now?
We shouldn't have to pay an annual fee to a Dartmoor National Park just to visit Alton Towers.
Are you obliged to? I'm not aware that you are, if you are that would be wrong.
I am always intrigued by the argument that the BBC shouldn't have anything popular or profitable on it. Suppose that was mandatory. What if they accidentally commissioned a roaring, worldwide success? Would that be grounds for all concerned to be dismissed?
Don’t be intrigued.
The argument is a mendacious attempt to close down the BBC because some people don’t want to pay taxes for it. But rather than say that, they try various specious side arguments.
I’m quite happy to say that, or at least I should have the option of paying for it or not. In the old days of two, three and the four channels then fine but in this day and age it’s a license fee is an anachronism. It also gives the BBC an unfair advantage over commercial rivals.
The BBC should compete for its revenue as other channels do and all that should be funded from taxes should be the transmission network.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
On the definition yes. However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.
I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.
Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.
I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
You are conflating a public service with a public good.
I’m really not.
The text book definition of a public good is that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, and the classic example given is public service broadcasting (presuming that broadcasting is free to air).
If the BBC ever went to a subscription only service it would no longer be a public good.
The fact that it can be a subscription service is what makes it excludable. And therefore fails the definition of being a public good.
Eh?
I can put a gate on the park up the road, too. That possibility doesn’t stop it being an example of a public good.
"National parks are not pure public goods." Turner, Journal of Economic Education, Vol 33, 2002.
Whose national parks? Are you arguing we also abolish national parks now?
We shouldn't have to pay an annual fee to a Dartmoor National Park just to visit Alton Towers.
Are you obliged to? I'm not aware that you are, if you are that would be wrong.
No, it's just an analogy. Dartmoor = BBC and Alton Towers = Sky. If I want to watch Sky, I shouldn't have to pay Dartmoor first.
EDIT: I fucked that last line up, but I'll leave it because it's still clear what I meant and I like the trippiness of the image.
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
It is mind boggling and really does indicate the civil service is not fit for purpose
Raising the question of who has been in charge of it for eleven and a half years?
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
Surely it was obvious that the committee would be asking how many people were working and when?
This seems to be very similar to the huge problems that my company now has dealing with people working from home for Local Authorities etc. All previous protocals & procedures that were in place have all disappeared. It is impossible to get hold of anyone and there are huge delays in everything. WFH in the Public Sector simply does not work.
If you are talking planning - every planner my wife knows has close to double their usual workload at the moment. The number of applications everywhere is utterly insane.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
On the definition yes. However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.
I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.
Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.
I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
You are conflating a public service with a public good.
I’m really not.
The text book definition of a public good is that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, and the classic example given is public service broadcasting (presuming that broadcasting is free to air).
If the BBC ever went to a subscription only service it would no longer be a public good.
I agree with you on your definition, but not the example (cos license fee).
At uni I was given stuff like parks, clean air, as best examples.
If you think of the LF as a tax this objection falls away. And it is pretty close to being a tax.
But its not a tax. If it was a tax that all had to pay, then it would be a public good, I agree on that, but it isn't so its not.
If you don't have a licence fee you are legally excluded from watching the BBC's TV therefore by definition the BBC's TV is not a public good since it is legally excludable. That is the definition.
If its to be a subscription service paid for by a fee, then it should be a voluntary fee not related to unrelated services like Sky Sports. If its to be a tax, make the case for that, but that's not what we have.
Another Tory (Royston Smith) putting the boot in "who prioritised animals over people"?
Bartons response was that the evacuation of the animals occurred after all other evacuations had taken place, and only the UK and US military were left and it was not a UK military flight out
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
It is mind boggling and really does indicate the civil service is not fit for purpose
Raising the question of who has been in charge of it for eleven and a half years?
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
Surely it was obvious that the committee would be asking how many people were working and when?
This seems to be very similar to the huge problems that my company now has dealing with people working from home for Local Authorities etc. All previous protocals & procedures that were in place have all disappeared. It is impossible to get hold of anyone and there are huge delays in everything. WFH in the Public Sector simply does not work.
If you are talking planning - every planner my wife knows has close to double their usual workload at the moment. The number of applications everywhere is utterly insane.
No, Local Authority Building/Maintenance Work. As I have mentioned before it now takes 6 months to get paid rather than the previous 10 days as no one can be bothered to do anything.
LAs used to be our Blue Chip clients, we don't bother quoting to them at the moment as they are such a nightmare
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
It is mind boggling and really does indicate the civil service is not fit for purpose
Raising the question of who has been in charge of it for eleven and a half years?
Mr. Farooq, it's not the passing of comments, it's the subversion of a cohesive story and interesting characters for the sake of promoting nonsense (women are great led to Rey being a plank of wood and Kylo Ren being utterly feeble compared to Vader).
It also buggered up the last season of Game of Thrones (Snow/Night King) although I suspect that may have been due to rampant incompetence rather than gender ideology. Hard to say.
How do you like your women in the swords-n-sorcery space then, Morris?
Great, always great. Never making mistakes. Unlike those nasty, miserable men.
Preferably non-white though. White women are complacent in spreading racism through their white tears and privileged position.
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...
It's not binary, I'd suggest.
Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.
The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.
'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
Are you talking about Flower of Scotland? I thought it was written in the 90s.
Flower of Scotland composed in the 1960s. There's no official Scottish anthem, though its interesting that FoS was originally adopted by rugby union, not a sport one usually thinks of as being in favour of Scottish indy.
Quite; Murrayfield is hardly Yes Stadium when the rugger buggers are out in force. So their adoption of it is interestingly dissonant with some perceptions.
I think it represents the the kind of nationalism a lot of folk feel comfortable with; sentimental, in the past, temporary, essentially harmless to the status quo. 90 minute* nationalism as one auld battler called it..
*or 80 minute in the case of RU.
Nothing wrong with being a rugger bugger though, of course! I used to be one ...
Moi aussi, though probably for the best that I gave it up before entering my youthful beer drinking and being an idiot phase.
I thought beer drinking and being an idiot was mandatory for being a rugger bugger.
I meant more the playing than the après. I made first XV at school for a few weeks and though I had started my first furtive forays into pubs at that point, I packed in the rugby before I reached the drinking each others piss and homoerotic high jinks in the showers stage (though some of that was available at art school if one's tastes ran that way).
I became a watcher of rugby in my school and university days because I was rubbish at rugby wanted to focus on my studies.
I moved from being a player of rugby at school to a watcher of rugby at university, becuase all of a sudden the opposing players were 6’6” tall, weighed 20st, and could run 100m in eleven point something!
I used to be a rugby player too (and with the blurring of history almost fit into Sandpit's description - well, give or take 6 inches and 4 stone). My single biggest regret in life is that when I moved away to university at 18 I let it slide - it wasn't even that I didn't enjoy rugby, I was just overwhelmed by the possibilities of my time being entirely my own. I had the opportunity to keep playing for my local club, and the weekly escape from the insular environment of university would have been great for the mental health (and indeed physical health), and would have maintained some much-needed structure in my life. I was ok at rugby too - and it would have been great, in my early 20s, when I was starting the world of work and becoming unpleasantly accustomed to being bad at things for the first time to have had something in my life that I was inarguably good at.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
On the definition yes. However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.
I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.
Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
So it's a subscription service then? In which case, why the constant moaning about it from many quarters?
Yes it is a subscription service and not a public good.
The constant moaning is because it is against the law to watch other services like Sky Sports, ITV or Channel 4 for instance without paying the BBC subscription fee. It is as if saying you could not subscribe to Disney unless you also subscribe to Netflix, by law.
There are many public good public service broadcasters that meet the textbook definition around the world. Any public broadcaster that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous meets the definition. As much as Gardenwalker wants to mislead about it, the BBC is not one of those broadcasters since it is legally excludable.
The way to do it, is either something like PBS in the States (funded directly by by government and voluntary contributions, making programmes of educational and artistic value that the market would not), or to have DCMS / lottery fund specific programming projects, which can air without advertising on the many existing commercial channels.
IMO the biggest argument against the licence fee model is that it is very regressive, taking up 10% of magistrates’ court cases and putting old ladies in prison, to fund six and seven figure salaries to presenters.
I think the BBC should be a public good (no license fee), but I appreciate that would make it difficult to retain independence from Gov.
Also strip out all the stuff that would work for a commercial channel (like strictly).
There is no reason for Strictly to be on the BBC. It is probably the most commercially viable programme in the country.
The BBC should be there for programmes which would not be commercially viable. I think the quality of documentaries on the BBC has declined quite dramatically. For example there used to be a constant stream of decent historical documentaries, C4 and C5 now both have better content. If I had more time I would get a subscription to HistoryHit.
Remove the likes of Strictly and its most popular programmes then the BBC would be the equivalent of PBS in the US. An entirely license fee or tax funded broadcaster making highbrow programmes with a fraction of its current audience but still no adverts which would help fund the likes of Strictly license or taxpayer free
Yes, and once the audience starts to decline there will be the usual calls to scrap it because no one watches it anymore. It's a vicious circle. The BBC took a hell of a chance building on a moribund product from the 50s called "Come Dancing" I suspect none of the commercial channels would have touched it.
It was, of course, entirely open to any commercial channel to have launched a celebrity ballroom dance show on Saturday nights at any time. Or indeed an amateur baking competition. They chose not to. Free choice.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
What do you mean? How could the country cope without a state mandated dancing contest in the telly every Saturday!
Yes. Steve Coogan as Jimmy Savile is another I'm looking forward to. Will he nail the essence or be a caricature? I have high hopes. I think Coogan is pretty good.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
On the definition yes. However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.
I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.
Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
So it's a subscription service then? In which case, why the constant moaning about it from many quarters?
Yes it is a subscription service and not a public good.
The constant moaning is because it is against the law to watch other services like Sky Sports, ITV or Channel 4 for instance without paying the BBC subscription fee. It is as if saying you could not subscribe to Disney unless you also subscribe to Netflix, by law.
There are many public good public service broadcasters that meet the textbook definition around the world. Any public broadcaster that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous meets the definition. As much as Gardenwalker wants to mislead about it, the BBC is not one of those broadcasters since it is legally excludable.
It's not a subscription service. It's a hypothecated tax.
My favoured reform of BBC funding would be to abolish the licence fee and instead hypothecate VAT revenues (or a similar percentage levy) from subscriptions to Sky/Netflix, TV sales, etc, to the BBC.
Consequently, if you were poor, and watched TV on a donated old CRT set, then you wouldn't pay anything, and the BBC would have an incentive to be part of a successful wider broadcasting industry, rather than seeing themselves in a struggle to the death with Sky et al.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
On the definition yes. However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.
I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.
Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster, by textbook definition and indeed by charter.
I’m sorry you are willing to lie on here because you don’t like Strictly.
You are conflating a public service with a public good.
I’m really not.
The text book definition of a public good is that it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, and the classic example given is public service broadcasting (presuming that broadcasting is free to air).
If the BBC ever went to a subscription only service it would no longer be a public good.
I agree with you on your definition, but not the example (cos license fee).
At uni I was given stuff like parks, clean air, as best examples.
If you think of the LF as a tax this objection falls away. And it is pretty close to being a tax.
But its not a tax. If it was a tax that all had to pay, then it would be a public good, I agree on that, but it isn't so its not.
If you don't have a licence fee you are legally excluded from watching the BBC's TV therefore by definition the BBC's TV is not a public good since it is legally excludable. That is the definition.
If its to be a subscription service paid for by a fee, then it should be a voluntary fee not related to unrelated services like Sky Sports. If its to be a tax, make the case for that, but that's not what we have.
A while ago the govt implemented true local television on a city or small regional bases as a public service. These channels have largely been a complete flop. Low ratings, cheap values and endless cheap US repeats.
Mr. Smithson, the endless intrusion of identity politics into entertainment is just cause for criticism.
Most works of culture have ideology of one kind of another embedded in them. People only tend to notice when the ideology runs counter to their own, or when it is done in a clumsy way. It would probably be wise to watch the programme in question before passing judgement.
This is true. However it's also very important to bear in mind that literature and many cultural forms are not *only* ideology. This is one of the main things I learnt, as someone who remains and still broadly perceives myself a left liberal, from an exhaustive university degree at the height of a period for ideological fashion.
Agree 100%. Very little good art is overtly ideological in my view. Nineteen Eighty Four or the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists are some exceptions that spring to mind.
And 'Power in the Darkness' by the Tom Robinson band.
And Killing In The Name by Rage Against the Machine.
The year that got to Christmas No.1 was brilliant!
Another Tory (Royston Smith) putting the boot in "who prioritised animals over people"?
Bartons response was that the evacuation of the animals occurred after all other evacuations had taken place, and only the UK and US military were left and it was not a UK military flight out
Alicia Kearns asking why the soldiers that processed the animals couldn't have been processing people - the Ambassador giving the best of some pretty poor accounts.
I think the BBC should be a public good (no license fee), but I appreciate that would make it difficult to retain independence from Gov.
Also strip out all the stuff that would work for a commercial channel (like strictly).
There is no reason for Strictly to be on the BBC. It is probably the most commercially viable programme in the country.
The BBC should be there for programmes which would not be commercially viable. I think the quality of documentaries on the BBC has declined quite dramatically. For example there used to be a constant stream of decent historical documentaries, C4 and C5 now both have better content. If I had more time I would get a subscription to HistoryHit.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Spitballing some ideas here, so it's probably a rubbish thought, but how about this: A channel, like the BBC, but for people who *don't* hate Britain & its past?
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
It is mind boggling and really does indicate the civil service is not fit for purpose
Raising the question of who has been in charge of it for eleven and a half years?
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
On the definition yes. However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.
I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.
Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
So it's a subscription service then? In which case, why the constant moaning about it from many quarters?
Yes it is a subscription service and not a public good.
The constant moaning is because it is against the law to watch other services like Sky Sports, ITV or Channel 4 for instance without paying the BBC subscription fee. It is as if saying you could not subscribe to Disney unless you also subscribe to Netflix, by law.
There are many public good public service broadcasters that meet the textbook definition around the world. Any public broadcaster that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous meets the definition. As much as Gardenwalker wants to mislead about it, the BBC is not one of those broadcasters since it is legally excludable.
It's not a subscription service. It's a hypothecated tax.
My favoured reform of BBC funding would be to abolish the licence fee and instead hypothecate VAT revenues (or a similar percentage levy) from subscriptions to Sky/Netflix, TV sales, etc, to the BBC.
Consequently, if you were poor, and watched TV on a donated old CRT set, then you wouldn't pay anything, and the BBC would have an incentive to be part of a successful wider broadcasting industry, rather than seeing themselves in a struggle to the death with Sky et al.
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
It is mind boggling and really does indicate the civil service is not fit for purpose
Raising the question of who has been in charge of it for eleven and a half years?
The unions ?
The classic Tory excuse.
It makes you wonder why Conservatives don't just give up standing for government and instead run unions. I mean, if that's where the power really is.
I think the BBC should be a public good (no license fee), but I appreciate that would make it difficult to retain independence from Gov.
Also strip out all the stuff that would work for a commercial channel (like strictly).
There is no reason for Strictly to be on the BBC. It is probably the most commercially viable programme in the country.
The BBC should be there for programmes which would not be commercially viable. I think the quality of documentaries on the BBC has declined quite dramatically. For example there used to be a constant stream of decent historical documentaries, C4 and C5 now both have better content. If I had more time I would get a subscription to HistoryHit.
Remove the likes of Strictly and its most popular programmes then the BBC would be the equivalent of PBS in the US. An entirely license fee or tax funded broadcaster making highbrow programmes with a fraction of its current audience but still no adverts which would help fund the likes of Strictly license or taxpayer free
Yes, and once the audience starts to decline there will be the usual calls to scrap it because no one watches it anymore. It's a vicious circle. The BBC took a hell of a chance building on a moribund product from the 50s called "Come Dancing" I suspect none of the commercial channels would have touched it.
It was, of course, entirely open to any commercial channel to have launched a celebrity ballroom dance show on Saturday nights at any time. Or indeed an amateur baking competition. They chose not to. Free choice.
Because its a s**t idea?
The BBCs love of "celebrities" is part of why I don't touch it with a bargepole. Crap TV.
The BBC would be much better if they paid a fraction to people looking to get into acting who commanded a fraction of the salary but with a good script and a good show. Rather than rehashing celebrity crap again and again.
I am always intrigued by the argument that the BBC shouldn't have anything popular or profitable on it. Suppose that was mandatory. What if they accidentally commissioned a roaring, worldwide success? Would that be grounds for all concerned to be dismissed?
Don’t be intrigued.
The argument is a mendacious attempt to close down the BBC because some people don’t want to pay taxes for it. But rather than say that, they try various specious side arguments.
If it was funded by taxes and open to all it would actually be a public good.
It isn't though. Its a corporation that is only legally allowed to be watch via its subscribers, but people are legally obliged to subscribe to it even if they want to only watch other subscriptions like Sky Sports.
Still wrong. And you personal beef also has no bearing on the question.
Move on to more comfortable territory for you, like your claim that all houses should be built with enough parking for 2.5 cars.
Philip is correct, but this conversations getting as boring as much of the BBC programming.
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
It is mind boggling and really does indicate the civil service is not fit for purpose
Raising the question of who has been in charge of it for eleven and a half years?
The unions ?
“The Blob”, as Michael Gove called them.
The sort of people who think work-life balance and the risk of misgendering people, are more important than stopping people being killed when a country turns into a war zone.
Unpressing your sark button, yep, exactly right and exactly the point. Existing nation nationalism is usually dodgier than new nation nationalism. The Brit Nat element of the Brexit case included some rather unsavoury themes. Far more so than I detect in Scot Nat. Sturgeon vs Farage, who's the seamier figure? SNP vs ERG, in which grouping would you be more likely to find outmoded values and attitudes doing the rounds?
Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't already a nation? ...
It's not binary, I'd suggest.
Our anthem refers to a battle over 700 years ago, and references sending English people home after a bloody battle.
The last verse warns against living in the past. And then asks that we do the whole sending home thing again.
Not my anthem, and one that was written IIRC in the context of the Napoleonic Wars.
'A man's a man for a that' is what was sung when the Scottish Parliament reconvened. Quite rightly.
Are you talking about Flower of Scotland? I thought it was written in the 90s.
Flower of Scotland composed in the 1960s. There's no official Scottish anthem, though its interesting that FoS was originally adopted by rugby union, not a sport one usually thinks of as being in favour of Scottish indy.
Quite; Murrayfield is hardly Yes Stadium when the rugger buggers are out in force. So their adoption of it is interestingly dissonant with some perceptions.
I think it represents the the kind of nationalism a lot of folk feel comfortable with; sentimental, in the past, temporary, essentially harmless to the status quo. 90 minute* nationalism as one auld battler called it..
*or 80 minute in the case of RU.
Nothing wrong with being a rugger bugger though, of course! I used to be one ...
Moi aussi, though probably for the best that I gave it up before entering my youthful beer drinking and being an idiot phase.
I thought beer drinking and being an idiot was mandatory for being a rugger bugger.
I meant more the playing than the après. I made first XV at school for a few weeks and though I had started my first furtive forays into pubs at that point, I packed in the rugby before I reached the drinking each others piss and homoerotic high jinks in the showers stage (though some of that was available at art school if one's tastes ran that way).
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
It is mind boggling and really does indicate the civil service is not fit for purpose
Raising the question of who has been in charge of it for eleven and a half years?
The unions ?
“The Blob”, as Michael Gove called them.
The sort of people who think work-life balance and the risk of misgendering people, are more important than stopping people being killed when a country turns into a war zone.
It's beggars belief they couldn't get civil servants to work given the situation.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
On the definition yes. However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.
I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.
Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
So it's a subscription service then? In which case, why the constant moaning about it from many quarters?
Yes it is a subscription service and not a public good.
The constant moaning is because it is against the law to watch other services like Sky Sports, ITV or Channel 4 for instance without paying the BBC subscription fee. It is as if saying you could not subscribe to Disney unless you also subscribe to Netflix, by law.
There are many public good public service broadcasters that meet the textbook definition around the world. Any public broadcaster that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous meets the definition. As much as Gardenwalker wants to mislead about it, the BBC is not one of those broadcasters since it is legally excludable.
It's not a subscription service. It's a hypothecated tax.
My favoured reform of BBC funding would be to abolish the licence fee and instead hypothecate VAT revenues (or a similar percentage levy) from subscriptions to Sky/Netflix, TV sales, etc, to the BBC.
Consequently, if you were poor, and watched TV on a donated old CRT set, then you wouldn't pay anything, and the BBC would have an incentive to be part of a successful wider broadcasting industry, rather than seeing themselves in a struggle to the death with Sky et al.
Its not a hypothecated tax since you have the choice whether to subscribe to it or not. I don't have a choice whether to pay my Income Tax, National Insurance or Council Tax because they're applied to everyone. The licence fee is only charged to its subscribers.
I don't see why Netflix subscribers should be charged more to pay for a rival service.
I think the BBC should be a public good (no license fee), but I appreciate that would make it difficult to retain independence from Gov.
Also strip out all the stuff that would work for a commercial channel (like strictly).
There is no reason for Strictly to be on the BBC. It is probably the most commercially viable programme in the country.
The BBC should be there for programmes which would not be commercially viable. I think the quality of documentaries on the BBC has declined quite dramatically. For example there used to be a constant stream of decent historical documentaries, C4 and C5 now both have better content. If I had more time I would get a subscription to HistoryHit.
Remove the likes of Strictly and its most popular programmes then the BBC would be the equivalent of PBS in the US. An entirely license fee or tax funded broadcaster making highbrow programmes with a fraction of its current audience but still no adverts which would help fund the likes of Strictly license or taxpayer free
Yes, and once the audience starts to decline there will be the usual calls to scrap it because no one watches it anymore. It's a vicious circle. The BBC took a hell of a chance building on a moribund product from the 50s called "Come Dancing" I suspect none of the commercial channels would have touched it.
It was, of course, entirely open to any commercial channel to have launched a celebrity ballroom dance show on Saturday nights at any time. Or indeed an amateur baking competition. They chose not to. Free choice.
Because its a s**t idea?
The BBCs love of "celebrities" is part of why I don't touch it with a bargepole. Crap TV.
The BBC would be much better if they paid a fraction to people looking to get into acting who commanded a fraction of the salary but with a good script and a good show. Rather than rehashing celebrity crap again and again.
A s**t idea? You usually believe in the sanctity of the free market. People choose to watch in their millions. Are they wrong and you right in this one particular incidence?
I am always intrigued by the argument that the BBC shouldn't have anything popular or profitable on it. Suppose that was mandatory. What if they accidentally commissioned a roaring, worldwide success? Would that be grounds for all concerned to be dismissed?
Don’t be intrigued.
The argument is a mendacious attempt to close down the BBC because some people don’t want to pay taxes for it. But rather than say that, they try various specious side arguments.
If it was funded by taxes and open to all it would actually be a public good.
It isn't though. Its a corporation that is only legally allowed to be watch via its subscribers, but people are legally obliged to subscribe to it even if they want to only watch other subscriptions like Sky Sports.
Still wrong. And you personal beef also has no bearing on the question.
Move on to more comfortable territory for you, like your claim that all houses should be built with enough parking for 2.5 cars.
Philip is correct, but this conversations getting as boring as much of the BBC programming.
He really isn’t. It’s a mendacious argument put about by right wing ultras.
Edit: even the IEA don’t claim that the BBC is *not* a public good. Just that, given digital technology, it should go subscription only.
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
It is mind boggling and really does indicate the civil service is not fit for purpose
Raising the question of who has been in charge of it for eleven and a half years?
The unions ?
The classic Tory excuse.
To be honest in this case it is a catalogue of missteps by the senior civil servants and they will come under a lot of criticism
I would say I was unfair on the unions in my comment
The BBC will have digital in-play clips for UK users within its live coverage of the men's Ashes when the iconic cricketing battle between England and Australia resumes on Wednesday, 8 December.
In addition to ball-by-ball Test Match Special commentary, the BBC has also secured rights to a daily highlights show.
The highlights show, which will be available on BBC iPlayer, will bring UK viewers all of the latest from the series daily at 17:00 GMT as England try to end the decade-long stretch since their last series win down under.
In addition to the digital clips, the BBC Sport website and app will have a short catch-up service when UK-based fans wake each morning.
I think the BBC should be a public good (no license fee), but I appreciate that would make it difficult to retain independence from Gov.
Also strip out all the stuff that would work for a commercial channel (like strictly).
There is no reason for Strictly to be on the BBC. It is probably the most commercially viable programme in the country.
The BBC should be there for programmes which would not be commercially viable. I think the quality of documentaries on the BBC has declined quite dramatically. For example there used to be a constant stream of decent historical documentaries, C4 and C5 now both have better content. If I had more time I would get a subscription to HistoryHit.
Remove the likes of Strictly and its most popular programmes then the BBC would be the equivalent of PBS in the US. An entirely license fee or tax funded broadcaster making highbrow programmes with a fraction of its current audience but still no adverts which would help fund the likes of Strictly license or taxpayer free
Yes, and once the audience starts to decline there will be the usual calls to scrap it because no one watches it anymore. It's a vicious circle. The BBC took a hell of a chance building on a moribund product from the 50s called "Come Dancing" I suspect none of the commercial channels would have touched it.
It was, of course, entirely open to any commercial channel to have launched a celebrity ballroom dance show on Saturday nights at any time. Or indeed an amateur baking competition. They chose not to. Free choice.
Because its a s**t idea?
The BBCs love of "celebrities" is part of why I don't touch it with a bargepole. Crap TV.
The BBC would be much better if they paid a fraction to people looking to get into acting who commanded a fraction of the salary but with a good script and a good show. Rather than rehashing celebrity crap again and again.
A s**t idea? You usually believe in the sanctity of the free market. People choose to watch in their millions. Are they wrong and you right in this one particular incidence?
Millions choose to watch The Only Way Is Essex too. I think that's shit too.
Millions voted for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party. I think that's shit too.
Many tens of millions more do not watch crappy celebrity TV drivel, or TOWIE, or vote for Corbyn. There's no accounting for shit tastes.
But if you want to watch TOWIE or Celebrity Bake Dance Sew Off or any other crap I have no qualms with you watching whatever you want to watch, just don't expect the rest of us to pay for it.
Yes. Steve Coogan as Jimmy Savile is another I'm looking forward to. Will he nail the essence or be a caricature? I have high hopes. I think Coogan is pretty good.
You should read "In Plain Sight" about Savile. Extraordinary book.
Sebastian Payne @SebastianEPayne NEW: RIP LEP? Michael Gove is expected to scrap most of the Cameron-era Local Enterprise Partnerships in the Levelling Up white paper, now due in early 2022.
Govt officials say they're "weak, ineffectual and bottom up with poor geography".
Ayesha Hazarika @ayeshahazarika · 3h I remember so many people in local govt & regional business at the time saying that the old RDAs (Regional Development Agencies) worked really well & they were baffled as to why these new LEPs were brought in when what existed was pretty good.
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
On the definition yes. However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.
I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.
Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
So it's a subscription service then? In which case, why the constant moaning about it from many quarters?
Yes it is a subscription service and not a public good.
The constant moaning is because it is against the law to watch other services like Sky Sports, ITV or Channel 4 for instance without paying the BBC subscription fee. It is as if saying you could not subscribe to Disney unless you also subscribe to Netflix, by law.
There are many public good public service broadcasters that meet the textbook definition around the world. Any public broadcaster that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous meets the definition. As much as Gardenwalker wants to mislead about it, the BBC is not one of those broadcasters since it is legally excludable.
It's not a subscription service. It's a hypothecated tax.
My favoured reform of BBC funding would be to abolish the licence fee and instead hypothecate VAT revenues (or a similar percentage levy) from subscriptions to Sky/Netflix, TV sales, etc, to the BBC.
Consequently, if you were poor, and watched TV on a donated old CRT set, then you wouldn't pay anything, and the BBC would have an incentive to be part of a successful wider broadcasting industry, rather than seeing themselves in a struggle to the death with Sky et al.
Its not a hypothecated tax since you have the choice whether to subscribe to it or not. I don't have a choice whether to pay my Income Tax, National Insurance or Council Tax because they're applied to everyone. The licence fee is only charged to its subscribers.
I don't see why Netflix subscribers should be charged more to pay for a rival service.
The tax on tobacco is a tax, despite the fact that I've never paid it, because I've never purchased tobacco.
The tax on watching live TV broadcasts is a tax, even though I didn't pay it for more than a decade because I didn't watch live broadcasts of TV during that time.
Income Tax is a tax, even though I didn't pay income tax when I was out of work and didn't have an income.
I'm quite surprised that the don't knows are not larger, but pleased that so many support the diplomatic boycott?
I'm guessing most on here would be for a (Diplomatic) boycott? by the UK
The diplomatic boycott is a no-brainer. If they don’t find that young lady tennis player, there’s going to be severe pressure building for a sporting boycott too, horrible as that would be for the athletes who have spent years training for the event.
I am always intrigued by the argument that the BBC shouldn't have anything popular or profitable on it. Suppose that was mandatory. What if they accidentally commissioned a roaring, worldwide success? Would that be grounds for all concerned to be dismissed?
Don’t be intrigued.
The argument is a mendacious attempt to close down the BBC because some people don’t want to pay taxes for it. But rather than say that, they try various specious side arguments.
If it was funded by taxes and open to all it would actually be a public good.
It isn't though. Its a corporation that is only legally allowed to be watch via its subscribers, but people are legally obliged to subscribe to it even if they want to only watch other subscriptions like Sky Sports.
Still wrong. And you personal beef also has no bearing on the question.
Move on to more comfortable territory for you, like your claim that all houses should be built with enough parking for 2.5 cars.
Philip is correct, but this conversations getting as boring as much of the BBC programming.
He really isn’t. It’s a mendacious argument put about by right wing ultras.
a 'Public Service' is a service provided to the public free at the point of consumption, like PBS in the US, as it can not legally be consumed in the UK, without a licence that one must pay for, it is not there for available for free, and there for not a Public Service'
You may or may not like the BBC, but by definition it is not a Public service. This is got to be the most boring pedantic argument on PB. a more interesting argument would be what we do with it, i.e. how do we privatise it.
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
It is mind boggling and really does indicate the civil service is not fit for purpose
Raising the question of who has been in charge of it for eleven and a half years?
The unions ?
“The Blob”, as Michael Gove called them.
The sort of people who think work-life balance and the risk of misgendering people, are more important than stopping people being killed when a country turns into a war zone.
Wrong target, no? I though the Blob (at least in Gove's original use of the term, while he was Education Sec), was aimed at lifelong civil servants being ultra-conservative (the small c is important) and obstructing his reforms, rather than ultra-progressives obsessed with whatever the Twitter cause du jour happens to be.
I'm quite surprised that the don't knows are not larger, but pleased that so many support the diplomatic boycott?
I'm guessing most on here would be for a (Diplomatic) boycott? by the UK
The diplomatic boycott is a no-brainer. If they don’t find that young lady tennis player, there’s going to be severe pressure building for a sporting boycott too, horrible as that would be for the athletes who have spent years training for the event.
Can you fill me in on this - I've completely missed this story
The BBC will have digital in-play clips for UK users within its live coverage of the men's Ashes when the iconic cricketing battle between England and Australia resumes on Wednesday, 8 December.
In addition to ball-by-ball Test Match Special commentary, the BBC has also secured rights to a daily highlights show.
The highlights show, which will be available on BBC iPlayer, will bring UK viewers all of the latest from the series daily at 17:00 GMT as England try to end the decade-long stretch since their last series win down under.
In addition to the digital clips, the BBC Sport website and app will have a short catch-up service when UK-based fans wake each morning.
Its not clear from this article, is it that PCR will still find a positive COVID, but not that it is omicron variant? or that it just totally misses that it is COVID?
Mr. Farooq, it's not the passing of comments, it's the subversion of a cohesive story and interesting characters for the sake of promoting nonsense (women are great led to Rey being a plank of wood and Kylo Ren being utterly feeble compared to Vader).
It also buggered up the last season of Game of Thrones (Snow/Night King) although I suspect that may have been due to rampant incompetence rather than gender ideology. Hard to say.
How do you like your women in the swords-n-sorcery space then, Morris?
Great, always great. Never making mistakes. Unlike those nasty, miserable men.
Preferably non-white though. White women are complacent in spreading racism through their white tears and privileged position.
There is no-one but no-one more into identity politics than you, Ed. It's your world, isn't it?
Lol looks like Omicron has already mutated to evade PCRs:
9m ago 16:15 Scientists find ‘stealth’ version of Omicron not identifiable with PCR test
Does that mean it actually evades PCRs and gives a negative result, or just that the PCR test is insufficient to distinguish between Omicron and Delta/other variants?
The BBC will have digital in-play clips for UK users within its live coverage of the men's Ashes when the iconic cricketing battle between England and Australia resumes on Wednesday, 8 December.
In addition to ball-by-ball Test Match Special commentary, the BBC has also secured rights to a daily highlights show.
The highlights show, which will be available on BBC iPlayer, will bring UK viewers all of the latest from the series daily at 17:00 GMT as England try to end the decade-long stretch since their last series win down under.
In addition to the digital clips, the BBC Sport website and app will have a short catch-up service when UK-based fans wake each morning.
I am always intrigued by the argument that the BBC shouldn't have anything popular or profitable on it. Suppose that was mandatory. What if they accidentally commissioned a roaring, worldwide success? Would that be grounds for all concerned to be dismissed?
Don’t be intrigued.
The argument is a mendacious attempt to close down the BBC because some people don’t want to pay taxes for it. But rather than say that, they try various specious side arguments.
If it was funded by taxes and open to all it would actually be a public good.
It isn't though. Its a corporation that is only legally allowed to be watch via its subscribers, but people are legally obliged to subscribe to it even if they want to only watch other subscriptions like Sky Sports.
Still wrong. And you personal beef also has no bearing on the question.
Move on to more comfortable territory for you, like your claim that all houses should be built with enough parking for 2.5 cars.
Philip is correct, but this conversations getting as boring as much of the BBC programming.
He really isn’t. It’s a mendacious argument put about by right wing ultras.
a 'Public Service' is a service provided to the public free at the point of consumption, like PBS in the US, as it can not legally be consumed in the UK, without a licence that one must pay for, it is not there for available for free, and there for not a Public Service'
You may or may not like the BBC, but by definition it is not a Public service. This is got to be the most boring pedantic argument on PB. a more interesting argument would be what we do with it, i.e. how do we privatise it.
Don't need to do anything with it frankly. I expect the numbers of viewers that bother with broadcast tv to diminish to the point of being a blip over the next 30 or so years....it will die naturally
Sigh...can the BBC ever make any program these days without having to change it to include identity politics / evils of imperialism etc?
A new BBC One adaptation of Around the World in 80 Days will highlight the “alarming” nature of the British Empire, according to its star.
David Tennant said the eight-part drama, which begins on Boxing Day and is aimed at a family audience, will explore “the racial and sexual politics” of Victorian England.
I get tired of this tedious BBC-bashing. Get a life.
I get tired of paying a licence fee towards BBC shite.
As soon as the BBC stops taxing those of us who don't watch their shit, they can produce whatever they feel like as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less what they produce, so long as I'm not expected to pay for it.
You should stop paying your taxes, too. You clearly benefit very little from government spend.
Taxes should be for public goods, not entertainment.
If you want to watch Eastenders or Strictly or any of that stuff then why not pay voluntarily for it?
Public service broadcasting is a public good.
The BBC literally isn't a public good, it fails to meet the definition.
In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
Since watching the BBC is illegal without a licence fee it is excludable and therefore not a public good.
You claim to be an economist, but Jesus Christ, where the fuck did you study? Mr Blobby world?
Resorting to cheap insults is always a good sign someone doesn't have an argument left.
No, but I have low tolerance for bad faith bullshit.
He is entirely correct on the definition of a public good.
On the definition yes. However he is 100% wrong in his additional claim.
I get he doesn’t like the BBC, but he can’t just make stuff up.
Not making anything up. It is against the law to watch the BBC without paying the licence fee, therefore its not a public good, since it is legally excludable.
Plenty of countries have genuine public service broadcasters which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The UK does not. The BBC is not a public service broadcaster however much it might like to claim to be one.
So it's a subscription service then? In which case, why the constant moaning about it from many quarters?
Yes it is a subscription service and not a public good.
The constant moaning is because it is against the law to watch other services like Sky Sports, ITV or Channel 4 for instance without paying the BBC subscription fee. It is as if saying you could not subscribe to Disney unless you also subscribe to Netflix, by law.
There are many public good public service broadcasters that meet the textbook definition around the world. Any public broadcaster that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous meets the definition. As much as Gardenwalker wants to mislead about it, the BBC is not one of those broadcasters since it is legally excludable.
It's not a subscription service. It's a hypothecated tax.
My favoured reform of BBC funding would be to abolish the licence fee and instead hypothecate VAT revenues (or a similar percentage levy) from subscriptions to Sky/Netflix, TV sales, etc, to the BBC.
Consequently, if you were poor, and watched TV on a donated old CRT set, then you wouldn't pay anything, and the BBC would have an incentive to be part of a successful wider broadcasting industry, rather than seeing themselves in a struggle to the death with Sky et al.
Its not a hypothecated tax since you have the choice whether to subscribe to it or not. I don't have a choice whether to pay my Income Tax, National Insurance or Council Tax because they're applied to everyone. The licence fee is only charged to its subscribers.
I don't see why Netflix subscribers should be charged more to pay for a rival service.
The tax on tobacco is a tax, despite the fact that I've never paid it, because I've never purchased tobacco.
The tax on watching live TV broadcasts is a tax, even though I didn't pay it for more than a decade because I didn't watch live broadcasts of TV during that time.
Income Tax is a tax, even though I didn't pay income tax when I was out of work and didn't have an income.
Fair point, well made. But the BBC is still legally excludable if you haven't paid the fee so by definition can not be a public good. Unlike other public service broadcasters around the globe which are non-excludable.
Alicia Kearns saying never mind the time the whistleblower was on his own, there were 2 night sessions where no one at all turned out. FO bods say they will have to check and come back.
It is mind boggling and really does indicate the civil service is not fit for purpose
Raising the question of who has been in charge of it for eleven and a half years?
The unions ?
“The Blob”, as Michael Gove called them.
The sort of people who think work-life balance and the risk of misgendering people, are more important than stopping people being killed when a country turns into a war zone.
It's not a union thing.
Some little time ago I was talking with a civil servant about the problems with the British Army ammunition*. The problem was that they had binned the unit of ammo buyers - gun geeks to a man. And replaced them with a "modern" unit of people who don't know anything about guns. So they bought the cheapest ammunition possible...
His response to my suggesting that this wasn't the best plan was an incredulous - "So you think the British Army should have it's ammunition bought by a bunch of gun-nuts?!"
When I replied "Yes", he was reduced to actual speechlessness.
*A lot of guns jammed. Due to cheap, poor quality ammunition.
Lol looks like Omicron has already mutated to evade PCRs:
9m ago 16:15 Scientists find ‘stealth’ version of Omicron not identifiable with PCR test
Does that really matter? It's detectable with the big sequencing program anyway.
This is more of an issue in countries not doing much sequencing, particularly if they are now concentrating their sequencing on the S-gene target failure PCR samples.
I'm quite surprised that the don't knows are not larger, but pleased that so many support the diplomatic boycott?
I'm guessing most on here would be for a (Diplomatic) boycott? by the UK
The diplomatic boycott is a no-brainer. If they don’t find that young lady tennis player, there’s going to be severe pressure building for a sporting boycott too, horrible as that would be for the athletes who have spent years training for the event.
Can you fill me in on this - I've completely missed this story
Chinese tennis pro accused some married senior party official of sexual assault when she broke off their affair, she was ‘disappeared’ a few days later and has only been seen since in what clearly look like hostage videos.
Mr. Farooq, it's not the passing of comments, it's the subversion of a cohesive story and interesting characters for the sake of promoting nonsense (women are great led to Rey being a plank of wood and Kylo Ren being utterly feeble compared to Vader).
It also buggered up the last season of Game of Thrones (Snow/Night King) although I suspect that may have been due to rampant incompetence rather than gender ideology. Hard to say.
How do you like your women in the swords-n-sorcery space then, Morris?
Great, always great. Never making mistakes. Unlike those nasty, miserable men.
Preferably non-white though. White women are complacent in spreading racism through their white tears and privileged position.
There is no-one but no-one more into identity politics than you, Ed. It's your world, isn't it?
Not really. If it was, I'd be on here far more of the time, writing pieces etc. I would imagine my output on the matter is far less than yours.
What I do find amusing though is your view that woke-ism is all fake news. If there was a similar movement on the Right that cancelled speakers who promoted trans rights, bullied corporates into promoting a 1950s view of the family etc, you would be up in arms.
The BBC will have digital in-play clips for UK users within its live coverage of the men's Ashes when the iconic cricketing battle between England and Australia resumes on Wednesday, 8 December.
In addition to ball-by-ball Test Match Special commentary, the BBC has also secured rights to a daily highlights show.
The highlights show, which will be available on BBC iPlayer, will bring UK viewers all of the latest from the series daily at 17:00 GMT as England try to end the decade-long stretch since their last series win down under.
In addition to the digital clips, the BBC Sport website and app will have a short catch-up service when UK-based fans wake each morning.
Comments
Are you arguing we also abolish national parks now?
It would be tricky working out what kind of programming wouldn't work on a domestic commercial basis, I grant you. There would also be exceptions like the FA cup final.
BBC TV and iplayer is a variation of that - in that it's not quite a subscription service. You need to pay for a TV license to watch any other live visual transmission not just the BBC.
It isn't though. Its a corporation that is only legally allowed to be watch via its subscribers, but people are legally obliged to subscribe to it even if they want to only watch other subscriptions like Sky Sports.
BBC Radio is a public good, since that is non-excludable.
And you personal beef also has no bearing on the question.
Move on to more comfortable territory for you, like your claim that all houses should be built with enough parking for 2.5 cars.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1468250647208284160
That's astonishing.
Remind me, who was his boss?
It also gives the BBC an unfair advantage over commercial rivals.
The BBC should compete for its revenue as other channels do and all that should be funded from taxes should be the transmission network.
If I want to watch Sky, I shouldn't have to pay Dartmoor first.
EDIT: I fucked that last line up, but I'll leave it because it's still clear what I meant and I like the trippiness of the image.
If you don't have a licence fee you are legally excluded from watching the BBC's TV therefore by definition the BBC's TV is not a public good since it is legally excludable. That is the definition.
If its to be a subscription service paid for by a fee, then it should be a voluntary fee not related to unrelated services like Sky Sports. If its to be a tax, make the case for that, but that's not what we have.
LAs used to be our Blue Chip clients, we don't bother quoting to them at the moment as they are such a nightmare
Preferably non-white though. White women are complacent in spreading racism through their white tears and privileged position.
IMO the biggest argument against the licence fee model is that it is very regressive, taking up 10% of magistrates’ court cases and putting old ladies in prison, to fund six and seven figure salaries to presenters.
They chose not to.
Free choice.
Diplomatic boycott
For - 43%
Against - 18%
Athletic boycott
For - 33%
Against - 30%
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1468250012089991174?s=20
My favoured reform of BBC funding would be to abolish the licence fee and instead hypothecate VAT revenues (or a similar percentage levy) from subscriptions to Sky/Netflix, TV sales, etc, to the BBC.
Consequently, if you were poor, and watched TV on a donated old CRT set, then you wouldn't pay anything, and the BBC would have an incentive to be part of a successful wider broadcasting industry, rather than seeing themselves in a struggle to the death with Sky et al.
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
Spitballing some ideas here, so it's probably a rubbish thought, but how about this: A channel, like the BBC, but for people who *don't* hate Britain & its past?
The BBCs love of "celebrities" is part of why I don't touch it with a bargepole. Crap TV.
The BBC would be much better if they paid a fraction to people looking to get into acting who commanded a fraction of the salary but with a good script and a good show. Rather than rehashing celebrity crap again and again.
The sort of people who think work-life balance and the risk of misgendering people, are more important than stopping people being killed when a country turns into a war zone.
Me too.
This type of thing is what you missed.
At Peak Corbyn (2017 GE), Labour got 17,287 votes. The LibDems got 2,948.
Seems extraordinary that Labour have thrown in the towel and handed the campaign over to Sir Ed Davey's mob. What a lack of ambition.
I don't see why Netflix subscribers should be charged more to pay for a rival service.
You usually believe in the sanctity of the free market.
People choose to watch in their millions. Are they wrong and you right in this one particular incidence?
It’s a mendacious argument put about by right wing ultras.
Edit: even the IEA don’t claim that the BBC is *not* a public good. Just that, given digital technology, it should go subscription only.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59559834
I'm guessing most on here would be for a (Diplomatic) boycott? by the UK
I would say I was unfair on the unions in my comment
Millions voted for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party. I think that's shit too.
Many tens of millions more do not watch crappy celebrity TV drivel, or TOWIE, or vote for Corbyn. There's no accounting for shit tastes.
But if you want to watch TOWIE or Celebrity Bake Dance Sew Off or any other crap I have no qualms with you watching whatever you want to watch, just don't expect the rest of us to pay for it.
9m ago
16:15
Scientists find ‘stealth’ version of Omicron not identifiable with PCR test
B
C
only on
P
B
Sebastian Payne
@SebastianEPayne
NEW: RIP LEP? Michael Gove is expected to scrap most of the Cameron-era Local Enterprise Partnerships in the Levelling Up white paper, now due in early 2022.
Govt officials say they're "weak, ineffectual and bottom up with poor geography".
Ayesha Hazarika
@ayeshahazarika
·
3h
I remember so many people in local govt & regional business at the time saying that the old RDAs (Regional Development Agencies) worked really well & they were baffled as to why these new LEPs were brought in when what existed was pretty good.
The tax on watching live TV broadcasts is a tax, even though I didn't pay it for more than a decade because I didn't watch live broadcasts of TV during that time.
Income Tax is a tax, even though I didn't pay income tax when I was out of work and didn't have an income.
https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2021
https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores
You may or may not like the BBC, but by definition it is not a Public service. This is got to be the most boring pedantic argument on PB. a more interesting argument would be what we do with it, i.e. how do we privatise it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/07/scientists-find-stealth-version-of-omicron-not-identifiable-with-pcr-test-covid-variant
I read it as the first, but not 100% clear.
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/shell-energy-supply-uk-limited-notice-revocation-electricity-supply-licence
Some little time ago I was talking with a civil servant about the problems with the British Army ammunition*. The problem was that they had binned the unit of ammo buyers - gun geeks to a man. And replaced them with a "modern" unit of people who don't know anything about guns. So they bought the cheapest ammunition possible...
His response to my suggesting that this wasn't the best plan was an incredulous - "So you think the British Army should have it's ammunition bought by a bunch of gun-nuts?!"
When I replied "Yes", he was reduced to actual speechlessness.
*A lot of guns jammed. Due to cheap, poor quality ammunition.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/19/tennis/peng-shuai-china-explainer-intl-hnk/index.html
What I do find amusing though is your view that woke-ism is all fake news. If there was a similar movement on the Right that cancelled speakers who promoted trans rights, bullied corporates into promoting a 1950s view of the family etc, you would be up in arms.