Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
What's happened to all the Boris fans on here? Some of the most ardent and prolific posters on here.
You couldn't navigate your way around the site for adoring posts from Isam Philip Thompson DavidL Sandpit RobD Felix the Two Bigs Carlotta etc
Now we seem to have just the lonesome voice of HYUFD. What's happened to the famous Blue Rosette loyalty?
These kinds of posts are peak tedium. We’re all here, except for isam who had a run in with the ban hammer.
I don't think they're 'peak tedium.' Everyone NOW thinks Johnson is a charlatan and a despicable liar. Many of us have been of that opinion for years and couldn't believe that the once proud Tory party would elect him
'Peak tedium' are the repetitive posts from the likes of me saying 'I TOLD YOU SO'. More interesting are explanations from people like you telling the rest of us why you couldn't see what was obvious and in plain sight.
I’m with you Roger. The entire erstwhile Boris fan club on here owes us an explanation, and an apology.
Not for me. Virtually all the PB right of centre just want Boris done now, Sunak in and the fight back begin, it’s the left who are beginning to sound moody and catty by the prospect. I’m not for rubbing peoples noses in it.
Sunak v Starmer v Davey is at least back to proper politics where votes and seats are fought for and deservedly won or lost as it should be, on the issues and policies. Elections are stronger for that.
Always rub opponents’ noses in it. Life offers up few pleasures, and Schadenfeude is one of the sweetest.
I’ve obviously still a lot to learn.
We were all young once 😉
By the way, employees are *never* “independent” of their employer. Basic fact of life. It’s why a lot of people prefer self-employment. (Where you become a slave to suppliers, customers, intermediaries, banks, customs and tax officials, arbitrary laws, rules and regulations, employees, trade unions etc etc etc…)
"BBC licence fee to be abolished in 2027 and funding frozen Government announcement will force broadcaster to close services and make further redundancies"
Yet again - YET AGAIN - and I really can’t believe I’m repeating this again…
The SA data was NOT comparing SA with the UK or indeed any other far flung land.
It was comparing SA (Delta) with SA (Omicron) and it found the latter to be a far milder variant. The South Africans were absolutely crystal clear about this, said so emphatically and repeatedly.
Yet they were ignored.
I really don't know what point you're trying to make.
Were the South Africans right? Yes, they were.
Should we have blindly followed their advice and accepted it without hesitation? No, because they might have been wrong. No Government would do that - they would want to see their own data from their own country before taking a view.
If you're upset with the fact we went to Plan B restrictions - blame Boris Johnson - it was his decision after all.
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
What's happened to all the Boris fans on here? Some of the most ardent and prolific posters on PB.
You couldn't navigate your way around the site for adoring posts from Isam Philip Thompson DavidL Sandpit RobD Felix the Two Bigs Carlotta etc
Now we seem to have just the lonesome voice of HYUFD. What's happened to the famous Blue Rosette loyalty?
They are in the bunker, hatches battened down, especially Bart Simpson who has gone from 24x7 posting to invisible.
Hello Malky. Nice sunny morning and blue sky here. I hope the ponies were good for you yesterday.
I had one placed , that meant I cleared my feet but not rich yet.
Hope the Scots, Irish and Welsh around here are all in good form this fine morning! Certain other PBers are a bit down in the dumps.
I think Scot Tories have done ok out of this, tbh. Could've been a lot worse. Have to grudgingly accept that Ross neutralised the threat with impeccable timing.
Labour remain incredibly weak north of the border. I had high hopes for Sarwar...
I like both Ross and Sarwar. I think they are both doing reasonably well in truly appalling circumstances for their respective parties. Ross played an absolute blinder this week. Kudos! Sarwar has been strangely invisible for quite a long time now. Huge, huge mistake for SLab to rely too heavily on Big Jackie.
I’m beginning to think the SCons might do surprisingly well in May, due to their unity and backbone. SLDs ditto. I suspect Sarwar is going to have some explaining to do after the polling stations close.
I completely agree that Sarwar has been invisible but the Labour vote is well up nationally and it would be surprising if some of that did not bleed into Scotland, despite the lack of effort on Sarwar's part. I think that Labour will improve. The SNP administration in Glasgow is clearly on a mission to make that in Holyrood look good and their zeal has been noteworthy. I can see them losing control and some Labour recovery in the City, if not enough to become the largest party.
Hope is the last thing that dies in a Unionist heart David. Hope.
One established or maintained by Theresa May? Really? Cameron I could believe, but not May.
The idea of anyone either having fun or being allowed to enjoy themselves in Mrs May's government is indeed a bit of a stretch. And did it make them any more competent?
At least they didn't funnel off billions of pounds' worth of unmonitored contracts to personal contacts. I was no fan of Theresa May, but she was never corruptible.
Nor did she face a crisis like Covid requiring urgent action. She would have dithered and whilst that would no doubt have saved a few bob here and there many more people would have died.
I don't think we're in a position to judge anything like that, really. While I've been happy to give the government more credit this December and don't like left/right groupthink on lockdown issues, the government's full performance on the pandemic over the two years has not been distinguished, at all, by international standards.
I have just joined the many that have, no doubt, emailed their MP to say that Johnson should resign and that I will not vote Conservative again until he goes.
Yet again - YET AGAIN - and I really can’t believe I’m repeating this again…
The SA data was NOT comparing SA with the UK or indeed any other far flung land.
It was comparing SA (Delta) with SA (Omicron) and it found the latter to be a far milder variant. The South Africans were absolutely crystal clear about this, said so emphatically and repeatedly.
Yet they were ignored.
I really don't know what point you're trying to make.
Were the South Africans right? Yes, they were.
Should we have blindly followed their advice and accepted it without hesitation? No, because they might have been wrong. No Government would do that - they would want to see their own data from their own country before taking a view.
If you're upset with the fact we went to Plan B restrictions - blame Boris Johnson - it was his decision after all.
Of course I blame Boris, and did so at the time.
In any case, I assume from the lack of responses to my question, most PBers will be happy to see Plan B binned.
(I thank @NickPalmer for his reply to the contrary despite disagreeing with him)
I have just joined the many that have, no doubt, emailed their MP to say that Johnson should resign and that I will not vote Conservative again until he goes.
I’d do the same but I’ve never voted for them anyway. So it’s probably true to say.
What to make of the Telegraph Carrie story, replete with photo of scissors legs.
They’ll know it’s not dynamite with the reading public. But one gets the impression that the reading public are not the target. There is one reader this story is targeted at and his name is Boris Johnson.
It’s gloves off stuff. “Unless you exit stage left, we are coming after your personal life and this is a mere amuse bouche to the 12 course tasting menu we have lined up”.
Let us not forget that this is a man who for all his faults, has always done his best to retain a certain mystery about his family life. To the extent that until very recently his wikipedia entry had to caveat his many children he has.
Quite something for the Boris Bible to take this approach. I am not tempted by TSE’s bet. Far too much uncertainty.
‘this is a man who for all his faults, has always done his best to retain a certain mystery about his family life’
Well, that’s one way of putting it. I’d put that in his faults ledger myself.
Good morning. Early morning sky appears to be thick cloud. However, just perhaps on the political horizon a new dawn IS breaking.
On thread topic I've always thought it noteworthy that, to the best of my knowledge, none of the Johnson children have sought to capitalise on their ancestry. They may, of course, be ashamed of it, but I am surprised that, again to my knowledge, no gentleman (or lady) of the press has asked them ..... been prepared to pay them ..... for "My Dad, Boris Johnson'. Or similar.
Capitalise on Johnson ancestry?!? Now there’s a concept worth exploring!
The fruits of Churchill’s loins managed to milk the brand for a few generations. Ditto Kennedy and probably many others. But if your surname is Johnson and you remotely resemble the oaf, get the deed poll in pronto.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it. They should have seen any extension beyond 2011 frankly as a bonus, and been creating a revenue stream away from it that would support them.
There needs to be a specific word in the English language to describe going away from the Test match for about an hour and then returning with hope to see how things are getting on only to discover the headline "Dismal England Collapse".
It would be word that captures much of what it means to be English. It would also be very useful.
Decline-ism.
Mind, if we were still German we could use compound words. Like Scottishfootballteamfanmelancholy.
Swedish is fantastic at creating compound words. Once you get the hang of it you can be quite creative. A typical example:
Flaggstångsknopp : the wee decorative bit at the top of a flagpole.
I actually do feel for him. He's been mistreated here. I'm still a fan and I hope he goes on to smash all the records and end the GOAT conversation. But it's a reasonable decision by Australia. The error was granting him a visa in the first place.
His errors are being a consistently anti-vax @sshat, not getting vaccinated, going around spreading the virus after he's got a positive result, and lying on immigration forms.
Given that, how do you think he's been 'mistreated'?
I feel zero sympathy for him. Like Johnson, his mistakes are all his own and unforced.
Told he could play. Given a visa. Goes. Visa is cancelled on arrival with no due process. Held for hours at airport. Detained in a shitty hostel. Goes to court, wins and gets visa back because of the aforesaid no due process. Back in the draw. Starts prep for the tourny. Then at the 11th hour the govt cancels his visa again in order to escape the hole they themselves have dug with their incompetence.
This is surely enough to justify using the word 'mistreated'. It was cock-up not conspiracy - they shouldn't have granted him the exemption and the visa in the first place - but it resulted in him being mistreated. So I think an accurate summary is he *was* mistreated but you have zero sympathy for him because he himself has behaved badly and is being a total twat about Covid vaccination. You're probably in the majority on this outside Serbia and the tennis world.
But all that occurred because of the points I made above. If he got vaccinated like nearly all the other players, none of this would have happened. He got the visa exception through a lie; he lied on his forms.
The Aussie authorities were more than fair with him. Fairer than they would be with me or you in his situation.
It is 100% his own fault.
Nah that's rubbish. I have no time for his anti-vaxxer views but the Australian authorities clearly screwed up and then went hardball to cover up their own mistakes and embarrassment. Where you are absolutely right they would not have behaved in the same way with any other non famous person in this situation but that is only because they wouldn't have had to. They could have just done what they wanted irrespective of how much they had screwed up, confident in the fact it would never have come out. As with the Andrew Mitchell affair a few years ago, it is only when the authorities try it on with someone famous that we realise how wrong they are. It is useful as it shines a torch on how they overstep their mark day in and day out.
Interesting to hear an Australian immigration lawyer this morning describe the Immigration Minister's powers as 'God-like' and hoping that this case might lead to curtailment of those powers.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
I have just joined the many that have, no doubt, emailed their MP to say that Johnson should resign and that I will not vote Conservative again until he goes.
I’d do the same but I’ve never voted for them anyway. So it’s probably true to say.
You can still email them (assuming you have a Tory MP) to flag your displeasure. They don't need to know you wont vote Tory
Johnson appears now to be in some sort of zombie zone. He probably has very little Cabinet support, but there's obvious collective nervousness at taking his mantle as the economic or more specifically social outlook deteriorates. That leaves either an extraordinarily surprising and honourable resignation, a call from the Met police, or the May elections as an apparently increasingly commonly agreed end date. I think those three look pretty clearly in reverse order of likelihood.
The economy is now larger than pre-Covid, the last restrictions are about to be dropped and that will boost output in Q1. Boris is very rightly in serious trouble for his pathological lying but 2022 may well prove to be a good year for the UK unless the wheels come off in China.
Inflation.
And the number of people on unemployment related benefits is still significantly higher than pre-pandemic (though that data is quite out of date now).
The risk is that disruptions in China interfere with the supply of many essential products, particularly chips, pushing up prices a lot but if that is not the case I think that the risk of inflation is slightly overstated.
There needs to be a specific word in the English language to describe going away from the Test match for about an hour and then returning with hope to see how things are getting on only to discover the headline "Dismal England Collapse".
It would be word that captures much of what it means to be English. It would also be very useful.
Decline-ism.
Mind, if we were still German we could use compound words. Like Scottishfootballteamfanmelancholy.
Swedish is fantastic at creating compound words. Once you get the hang of it you can be quite creative. A typical example:
Flaggstångsknopp : the wee decorative bit at the top of a flagpole.
I actually do feel for him. He's been mistreated here. I'm still a fan and I hope he goes on to smash all the records and end the GOAT conversation. But it's a reasonable decision by Australia. The error was granting him a visa in the first place.
His errors are being a consistently anti-vax @sshat, not getting vaccinated, going around spreading the virus after he's got a positive result, and lying on immigration forms.
Given that, how do you think he's been 'mistreated'?
I feel zero sympathy for him. Like Johnson, his mistakes are all his own and unforced.
Told he could play. Given a visa. Goes. Visa is cancelled on arrival with no due process. Held for hours at airport. Detained in a shitty hostel. Goes to court, wins and gets visa back because of the aforesaid no due process. Back in the draw. Starts prep for the tourny. Then at the 11th hour the govt cancels his visa again in order to escape the hole they themselves have dug with their incompetence.
This is surely enough to justify using the word 'mistreated'. It was cock-up not conspiracy - they shouldn't have granted him the exemption and the visa in the first place - but it resulted in him being mistreated. So I think an accurate summary is he *was* mistreated but you have zero sympathy for him because he himself has behaved badly and is being a total twat about Covid vaccination. You're probably in the majority on this outside Serbia and the tennis world.
Yes - incompetence though? Pre-election populist posturing I'd say. Anyone who has been travelling lately knows that countries have in effect contracted out their border requirements to the airlines, who check every passenger at check-in. If there was an error then the airline's procedures were at fault. If this had happened to you or I I think we'd have been waved through or at worst given a Covid test before leaving the airport.
The root of the problem as I see it - other than the obvious of him refusing to be vaccinated - was the disconnect between the Aussie Open who wanted him and flexed to get him and the Federal government who, following public outcry, flexed the other way to get rid of him.
What to make of the Telegraph Carrie story, replete with photo of scissors legs.
They’ll know it’s not dynamite with the reading public. But one gets the impression that the reading public are not the target. There is one reader this story is targeted at and his name is Boris Johnson.
It’s gloves off stuff. “Unless you exit stage left, we are coming after your personal life and this is a mere amuse bouche to the 12 course tasting menu we have lined up”.
Let us not forget that this is a man who for all his faults, has always done his best to retain a certain mystery about his family life. To the extent that until very recently his wikipedia entry had to caveat his many children he has.
Quite something for the Boris Bible to take this approach. I am not tempted by TSE’s bet. Far too much uncertainty.
‘this is a man who for all his faults, has always done his best to retain a certain mystery about his family life’
Well, that’s one way of putting it. I’d put that in his faults ledger myself.
Good morning. Early morning sky appears to be thick cloud. However, just perhaps on the political horizon a new dawn IS breaking.
On thread topic I've always thought it noteworthy that, to the best of my knowledge, none of the Johnson children have sought to capitalise on their ancestry. They may, of course, be ashamed of it, but I am surprised that, again to my knowledge, no gentleman (or lady) of the press has asked them ..... been prepared to pay them ..... for "My Dad, Boris Johnson'. Or similar.
Capitalise on Johnson ancestry?!? Now there’s a concept worth exploring!
The fruits of Churchill’s loins managed to milk the brand for a few generations. Ditto Kennedy and probably many others. But if your surname is Johnson and you remotely resemble the oaf, get the deed poll in pronto.
The extra competition will reduce the premium on its lonesome (although how there are not millions of Kennedys running around I have no idea. Maybe the drugs made him less sexually potent)?
But if he does this week, what about your credibility? Surely there is so much uncertainty this weekend, none of us can be so sure what happens next couple of days?
The only thing we can be sure about is wether or not the letters are in tomorrow, the Assailant will still release something to keep up momentum Tuesday evening.
What does nowhere mean anyway, you reckon he is in for 10 years? What is your take on exit date?
I’m making a prediction that he’ll not go in the near term. I could be wrong. I often am.
But it doesn’t appear that the Tory Party have the cojones to get rid of him.
Thanks.
I had to look up cojones, my initial thought was something in find in a finger buffet with a sweet chilli dip.
Could well be tapas in Spain for all I know. They are big on sweetbreads in the Continent.
So would a garlic mayonnaise dip go better with cojones than sweet chilli?
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
Our local Tory MP has just been spotted out canvassing.
For a Town Council election. Not even a particularly huge town (15,000), and one where the council is dominated by Conservatives.
Do you think they're scared?
Could be very sensibly getting a feel of the people for one of the biggest responsibilities of their career. Could be what they should all be doing this afternoon?
What to make of the Telegraph Carrie story, replete with photo of scissors legs.
They’ll know it’s not dynamite with the reading public. But one gets the impression that the reading public are not the target. There is one reader this story is targeted at and his name is Boris Johnson.
It’s gloves off stuff. “Unless you exit stage left, we are coming after your personal life and this is a mere amuse bouche to the 12 course tasting menu we have lined up”.
Let us not forget that this is a man who for all his faults, has always done his best to retain a certain mystery about his family life. To the extent that until very recently his wikipedia entry had to caveat his many children he has.
Quite something for the Boris Bible to take this approach. I am not tempted by TSE’s bet. Far too much uncertainty.
‘this is a man who for all his faults, has always done his best to retain a certain mystery about his family life’
Well, that’s one way of putting it. I’d put that in his faults ledger myself.
Good morning. Early morning sky appears to be thick cloud. However, just perhaps on the political horizon a new dawn IS breaking.
On thread topic I've always thought it noteworthy that, to the best of my knowledge, none of the Johnson children have sought to capitalise on their ancestry. They may, of course, be ashamed of it, but I am surprised that, again to my knowledge, no gentleman (or lady) of the press has asked them ..... been prepared to pay them ..... for "My Dad, Boris Johnson'. Or similar.
Capitalise on Johnson ancestry?!? Now there’s a concept worth exploring!
The fruits of Churchill’s loins managed to milk the brand for a few generations. Ditto Kennedy and probably many others. But if your surname is Johnson and you remotely resemble the oaf, get the deed poll in pronto.
The extra competition will reduce the premium on its lonesome (although how there are not millions of Kennedys running around I have no idea. Maybe the drugs made him less sexually potent)?
Churchill was fertile despite an appalling alcohol dependency. Some people get lucky.
On the other hand, many fit and healthy people are involuntarily infertile. Life can be very arbitrary and cruel.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
In that case, why (in accordance with your earlier post) was the BBC doing so well in Europe before Brexit?
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
I'm not a monarchist but I think that is a bit harsh. His uncles get armed protection (I know because I know one of the officer who provided it) and I would have thought Harry was at greater risk and he is willing to pay. What is the issue?
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
what country's TV would you recommend? The US?
To be fair, American TV, at it's best, has improved, and much British TV has stagnated or deteriorated. American television is still often much more formulaic, though, than British television's highpoint, between the later 1960s, and ending from the fallout of the Conservatives' regulatory changes with ITV and Channel 4, and Birt at the BBC, starting clearly from the mid 1990's onwards.
There is still a lot of good television being made in Continental Europe, however.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
True of the main channels. The likes of BBC4 and Sky Arts are better.
I'm finding it quite tiresome hearing of all these crocodile tears from MPs and voters who were more than happy to vote for and support Boris when it suited them. They got exactly what they voted for.
They were more than happy to foist an inadequate on the rest of us. Now that they've finally realised what the rest of us worked out a while ago, we're expected to sympathise with their boo-hooing and get behind whichever other inadequate and previous Boris supporter they want to foist on us again.
Er..... no.
I still don’t like the constant referring of Sue Gray as not independent - maybe it’s just me, my gut feel is it comes across as politically partisan attack on her and quality of her work.
It is in no way a slight on her integrity or capability. It's just the reality of her position. I'd say the same of anyone in her post who has been given the particular restricted remit she has.
Yet again - YET AGAIN - and I really can’t believe I’m repeating this again…
The SA data was NOT comparing SA with the UK or indeed any other far flung land.
It was comparing SA (Delta) with SA (Omicron) and it found the latter to be a far milder variant. The South Africans were absolutely crystal clear about this, said so emphatically and repeatedly.
Yet they were ignored.
I really don't know what point you're trying to make.
Were the South Africans right? Yes, they were.
Should we have blindly followed their advice and accepted it without hesitation? No, because they might have been wrong. No Government would do that - they would want to see their own data from their own country before taking a view.
If you're upset with the fact we went to Plan B restrictions - blame Boris Johnson - it was his decision after all.
No one is saying we should have followed their advice. Only that we should have looked at their data. Too many in this country influencing decisions failed to do so and so kept on with the utter garbage that Omicron was as dangerous as Delta. It was garbage.
There needs to be a specific word in the English language to describe going away from the Test match for about an hour and then returning with hope to see how things are getting on only to discover the headline "Dismal England Collapse".
It would be word that captures much of what it means to be English. It would also be very useful.
Decline-ism.
Mind, if we were still German we could use compound words. Like Scottishfootballteamfanmelancholy.
Speak for yourself. I’m a Pict.
Whoops - meant to say Germanic. Not trying to pretend I'm a Royal or my dad was a POW. I'm partly Pict anyway too ...
Nothing wrong with Germans. Her Majesty is a fine woman. How many PM’s will have served her when Boris is booted out? Must be well into double figures.
If she survives Boris departure (for which I’m sure most of us fervently pray) she’ll beat George III record for “monarch with most PMs”.
Our local Tory MP has just been spotted out canvassing.
For a Town Council election. Not even a particularly huge town (15,000), and one where the council is dominated by Conservatives.
Do you think they're scared?
Could be very sensibly getting a feel of the people for one of the biggest responsibilities of their career. Could be what they should all be doing this afternoon?
Could well be!
It's the safest town in a (safe) constituency. Military, so basically always votes Tory. No discernible Labour presence. The Lib Dems have decided to have a crack at a TC seat for the first time. Usually the local Tories would say "lol, Lib Dems". This time apparently not.
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
I'm not a monarchist but I think that is a bit harsh. His uncles get armed protection (I know because I know one of the officer who provided it) and I would have thought Harry was at greater risk and he is willing to pay. What is the issue?
I understood that his Uncle's get protection because they are still carrying out official Royal duties. I suspect Andrew may lose his protection now that he is 'outside' the firm.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
There were many people on here who were pointing out very early on that the frightening spike of cases in SA was not being followed by either a spike in hospitalisations or deaths. The government clearly saw that too and decided that the risk of plan B was worth it. It was a brave call, had Omicron proven more lethal in an older population with more co-morbidities forcing the government to take further precautions they would have lost most or all of the credit they have earned with vaccines etc.
As it is we have seen that the restrictions on sports events, pubs, nightclubs etc which so ruined New Year in Scotland have been proven to be unnecessary and the economic damage all too avoidable.
So plan B is added to the list of successes which includes the methodology of selecting the vaccines with Kate Bingham; the incredibly quick approval and roll out; the strategic investments in vaccine manufacture; the best sequencing system in the world; the furlough scheme, the grants for the self employed, the hospitality sector and retail; the booster scheme and the decision, despite a lot of medical controversy, to extend vaccines to children.
Of course there have been failures too: airport policy throughout has been chaotic and irrational; the test and trace system has been incredibly ineffective and an unbelievable waste of money; the decisions in Christmas 2020 were clearly sub-optimal; education has been far more disrupted than it should have been; the decision to clear out the bed blockers from hospital to Care homes could have been handled a lot better and, although understandable, the Nightingale hospitals proved rather a waste of money.
No doubt there are other points that could be made in either category but for me it is a solid B+, arguably A-, and has been a hell of a lot more important to the welfare and future of the residents of this country than civil servants drinking after hours at their work.
A few other mistakes:
1) Lack of a general health and fitness campaign 2) Poor on risk segmentation eg could have sent better masks for the most vulnerable 3) Obsession about hand washing while ignoring ventilation 4) Closure of non-essential but non-risky activities eg golf courses
Good points. Especially 1.
The first thing that hits one upon leaving an airport in Scotland or England is how unfit/unwell most people look. You lot really, really need to up your game.
A few helpful suggestions: - crack down on alcohol consumption like a ton of bricks (exhorbitant pricing, limited distribution/availability, total advertising ban and strict control of ingredients/strength) - ban on advertising sugary products - ban on fast food and confectionery sales within 1000m of schools - more PE; much, much more PE - invest in grassroots sport and fuck those privileged tossers in Olympics etc - about 100 other low-lying fruit
I don't think puritanism is the answer.
So you acknowledge the problem. What is the answer then?
Not heavy taxes and restrictions on booze and food of which po-faced vegan clean living fanatics don't approve, for starters. At the end of this miserable era of being bossed about and nannied, the last thing on Earth we need is yet more taxes and yet more restrictions (the primary results of which will be to deliver the coup de grace to much of the already wounded hospitality trade, and to price poor people out of pleasure.)
Behavioural change on the scale required can only be achieved by (a) forcibly outlawing just about every food except fruit and veg (and good luck getting that past the electorate) or (b) positive initiatives to help people - the hard slog of public health campaigns, GPs being given the cash to prescribe interventions like gym and slimming club memberships to fatties, and that cash for grassroots sport (albeit that this and elite funding aren't necessarily an either/or.) Option (b) seems to be the way to go. Let's not have more of the Government being horrible to people, just for a change.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
In that case, why (in accordance with your earlier post) was the BBC doing so well in Europe before Brexit?
I'm finding it quite tiresome hearing of all these crocodile tears from MPs and voters who were more than happy to vote for and support Boris when it suited them. They got exactly what they voted for.
They were more than happy to foist an inadequate on the rest of us. Now that they've finally realised what the rest of us worked out a while ago, we're expected to sympathise with their boo-hooing and get behind whichever other inadequate and previous Boris supporter they want to foist on us again.
Er..... no.
I still don’t like the constant referring of Sue Gray as not independent - maybe it’s just me, my gut feel is it comes across as politically partisan attack on her and quality of her work.
She’s employed by the civil service and her ultimate boss (Boris) is one of the people she is investigating. I just see her as being given an impossible no win task that no one could perform at the best of times even if you ignore the scrutiny the report will be under when it’s released.
David Green has a great overview on why the report won’t please anyone https://t.co/L6UTIrkB5T
Is she employed by the Civil Service though. I thought her job record was somewhat strange, implying another employer.
"Second Permanent Secretary to Cabinet Office" sounds awfully like being employed by the CS.
Indeed but, unless I'm very much mistaken, she seems to have spent some time running a pub in N. Ireland. Now I'm sure Ms Cyclefree's daughter would be interested to know that one can go straight from that role to quite a senior Civil Service position.
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
The general risk against him is higher than the other members of the Royal family without armed police protection. A risk assessment should be made but it does not require a specific threat to be known to justify armed protection.
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
Police priorities should be set based on operational requirements. There are only so many qualified officers. If they are looking after Harry Windsor and his family (even if it is cost neutral) there is an opportunity cost in that they aren’t doing something more important
I'm finding it quite tiresome hearing of all these crocodile tears from MPs and voters who were more than happy to vote for and support Boris when it suited them. They got exactly what they voted for.
They were more than happy to foist an inadequate on the rest of us. Now that they've finally realised what the rest of us worked out a while ago, we're expected to sympathise with their boo-hooing and get behind whichever other inadequate and previous Boris supporter they want to foist on us again.
Er..... no.
I still don’t like the constant referring of Sue Gray as not independent - maybe it’s just me, my gut feel is it comes across as politically partisan attack on her and quality of her work.
She’s employed by the civil service and her ultimate boss (Boris) is one of the people she is investigating. I just see her as being given an impossible no win task that no one could perform at the best of times even if you ignore the scrutiny the report will be under when it’s released.
David Green has a great overview on why the report won’t please anyone https://t.co/L6UTIrkB5T
Is she employed by the Civil Service though. I thought her job record was somewhat strange, implying another employer.
"Second Permanent Secretary to Cabinet Office" sounds awfully like being employed by the CS.
Indeed but, unless I'm very much mistaken, she seems to have spent some time running a pub in N. Ireland. Now I'm sure Ms Cyclefree's daughter would be interested to know that one can go straight from that role to quite a senior Civil Service position.
I am sure that for pension purposes she has unbroken service..
Re:Covid - I see that Labour appears to be gearing up for their Covid policy to involve regular mass testing and ongoing policies of isolation for infected individuals (supported by improved eligibility for “sick” pay). Which probably leads to continued failure to draw lines between “with” and “of” Covid along with the inevitability of some level of restrictions being imposed every winter as the tyranny of the modellers (guesstimating about severity of whatever latest tweak in the virus is circulating) is retained and the NHS performs its annual cries for help.
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
I'm not a monarchist but I think that is a bit harsh. His uncles get armed protection (I know because I know one of the officer who provided it) and I would have thought Harry was at greater risk and he is willing to pay. What is the issue?
If there is a specific risk such that armed protection is genuinely needed then he should get it.
Police resources should be used according to need and risk not on the basis of who can can pay most for them.
If he just wants generalised security he has that and can continue paying for it himself.
He managed to make 2 visits to the U.K. last year without this fuss so what's changed?
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
True of the main channels. The likes of BBC4 and Sky Arts are better.
Sky Arts. Endless re runs of Tales of the unexpected. Lovely stuff
There needs to be a specific word in the English language to describe going away from the Test match for about an hour and then returning with hope to see how things are getting on only to discover the headline "Dismal England Collapse".
It would be word that captures much of what it means to be English. It would also be very useful.
Decline-ism.
Mind, if we were still German we could use compound words. Like Scottishfootballteamfanmelancholy.
Speak for yourself. I’m a Pict.
Whoops - meant to say Germanic. Not trying to pretend I'm a Royal or my dad was a POW. I'm partly Pict anyway too ...
Nothing wrong with Germans. Her Majesty is a fine woman. How many PM’s will have served her when Boris is booted out? Must be well into double figures.
If she survives Boris departure (for which I’m sure most of us fervently pray) she’ll beat George III record for “monarch with most PMs”.
Are you including Liverpool in the list? Because you probably shouldn't. He was appointed under the Prince Regent.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
True of the main channels. The likes of BBC4 and Sky Arts are better.
Fair comment. Shame you have to wade through 150 channels of shite to get there.
What to make of the Telegraph Carrie story, replete with photo of scissors legs.
They’ll know it’s not dynamite with the reading public. But one gets the impression that the reading public are not the target. There is one reader this story is targeted at and his name is Boris Johnson.
It’s gloves off stuff. “Unless you exit stage left, we are coming after your personal life and this is a mere amuse bouche to the 12 course tasting menu we have lined up”.
Let us not forget that this is a man who for all his faults, has always done his best to retain a certain mystery about his family life. To the extent that until very recently his wikipedia entry had to caveat his many children he has.
Quite something for the Boris Bible to take this approach. I am not tempted by TSE’s bet. Far too much uncertainty.
‘this is a man who for all his faults, has always done his best to retain a certain mystery about his family life’
Well, that’s one way of putting it. I’d put that in his faults ledger myself.
Good morning. Early morning sky appears to be thick cloud. However, just perhaps on the political horizon a new dawn IS breaking.
On thread topic I've always thought it noteworthy that, to the best of my knowledge, none of the Johnson children have sought to capitalise on their ancestry. They may, of course, be ashamed of it, but I am surprised that, again to my knowledge, no gentleman (or lady) of the press has asked them ..... been prepared to pay them ..... for "My Dad, Boris Johnson'. Or similar.
Capitalise on Johnson ancestry?!? Now there’s a concept worth exploring!
The fruits of Churchill’s loins managed to milk the brand for a few generations. Ditto Kennedy and probably many others. But if your surname is Johnson and you remotely resemble the oaf, get the deed poll in pronto.
The extra competition will reduce the premium on its lonesome (although how there are not millions of Kennedys running around I have no idea. Maybe the drugs made him less sexually potent)?
Harsh but compelling theory: Kennedy's womens' expectations were set far enough in advance for them to make the appropriate arrangements, Boris is a pouncer and a pesterer and lacks the foresight to be tooled up, as it were, on his own account. It's an appallingly high bastardy rate for this era.
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
Police priorities should be set based on operational requirements. There are only so many qualified officers. If they are looking after Harry Windsor and his family (even if it is cost neutral) there is an opportunity cost in that they aren’t doing something more important
Like spending time in meetings discussing how to justify not investigating the PMs clearly illegal activities?
That we did plan B when we did doesn't mean the developing picture in South Africa didn't play into the decision. It simply means that a bullish interpretation of it didn't *govern* the decision.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
True of the main channels. The likes of BBC4 and Sky Arts are better.
Sky Arts. Endless re runs of Tales of the unexpected. Lovely stuff
BBC4 used to make some decent original drama.
And its first few years many superior documentaries and international cinema, like the pre-Birt restructuring BBC2. Now it often shows repeats of Top of the Pops.
However, I still prefer this diminished BBC to the alternatives the Conservatives have in mind.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
In that case, why (in accordance with your earlier post) was the BBC doing so well in Europe before Brexit?
Because I’m stuck in ‘polemical’ mode?
I'm intrigued by that post. It implies there are times when you are not in polemical mode...
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
what country's TV would you recommend? The US?
German TV (ARD/ZDF) suits me - lots of serious drama, reasonably balanced news coverage, some entertainment and culture. I wouldn't inflict it on everyone, but I'm glad it's out there. Likewise the BBC. Watching TV without ads is a huge bonus as far as I'm concerned - dipping into my neighbour's Sky channels, it was the ads as much as the crapness of the programmes that made me glad I don't get it. She pays £80/month!!
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
I'm not a monarchist but I think that is a bit harsh. His uncles get armed protection (I know because I know one of the officer who provided it) and I would have thought Harry was at greater risk and he is willing to pay. What is the issue?
Indeed. Not a monarchist either but if we are going that way, lets at least stop them being kidnapped or murdered.
What to make of the Telegraph Carrie story, replete with photo of scissors legs.
They’ll know it’s not dynamite with the reading public. But one gets the impression that the reading public are not the target. There is one reader this story is targeted at and his name is Boris Johnson.
It’s gloves off stuff. “Unless you exit stage left, we are coming after your personal life and this is a mere amuse bouche to the 12 course tasting menu we have lined up”.
Let us not forget that this is a man who for all his faults, has always done his best to retain a certain mystery about his family life. To the extent that until very recently his wikipedia entry had to caveat his many children he has.
Quite something for the Boris Bible to take this approach. I am not tempted by TSE’s bet. Far too much uncertainty.
‘this is a man who for all his faults, has always done his best to retain a certain mystery about his family life’
Well, that’s one way of putting it. I’d put that in his faults ledger myself.
Good morning. Early morning sky appears to be thick cloud. However, just perhaps on the political horizon a new dawn IS breaking.
On thread topic I've always thought it noteworthy that, to the best of my knowledge, none of the Johnson children have sought to capitalise on their ancestry. They may, of course, be ashamed of it, but I am surprised that, again to my knowledge, no gentleman (or lady) of the press has asked them ..... been prepared to pay them ..... for "My Dad, Boris Johnson'. Or similar.
Capitalise on Johnson ancestry?!? Now there’s a concept worth exploring!
The fruits of Churchill’s loins managed to milk the brand for a few generations. Ditto Kennedy and probably many others. But if your surname is Johnson and you remotely resemble the oaf, get the deed poll in pronto.
The extra competition will reduce the premium on its lonesome (although how there are not millions of Kennedys running around I have no idea. Maybe the drugs made him less sexually potent)?
Harsh but compelling theory: Kennedy's womens' expectations were set far enough in advance for them to make the appropriate arrangements, Boris is a pouncer and a pesterer and lacks the foresight to be tooled up, as it were, on his own account. It's an appallingly high bastardy rate for this era.
Hmmm...that theory is not born out by the experiences of say, Mimi Alford.
I'm finding it quite tiresome hearing of all these crocodile tears from MPs and voters who were more than happy to vote for and support Boris when it suited them. They got exactly what they voted for.
They were more than happy to foist an inadequate on the rest of us. Now that they've finally realised what the rest of us worked out a while ago, we're expected to sympathise with their boo-hooing and get behind whichever other inadequate and previous Boris supporter they want to foist on us again.
Er..... no.
I still don’t like the constant referring of Sue Gray as not independent - maybe it’s just me, my gut feel is it comes across as politically partisan attack on her and quality of her work.
She’s employed by the civil service and her ultimate boss (Boris) is one of the people she is investigating. I just see her as being given an impossible no win task that no one could perform at the best of times even if you ignore the scrutiny the report will be under when it’s released.
David Green has a great overview on why the report won’t please anyone https://t.co/L6UTIrkB5T
Is she employed by the Civil Service though. I thought her job record was somewhat strange, implying another employer.
"Second Permanent Secretary to Cabinet Office" sounds awfully like being employed by the CS.
Indeed but, unless I'm very much mistaken, she seems to have spent some time running a pub in N. Ireland. Now I'm sure Ms Cyclefree's daughter would be interested to know that one can go straight from that role to quite a senior Civil Service position.
Well, indeed. And with a mother who is a trained and experienced investigator.
Mind you, running a pub in NI during the Troubles then moving into the Civil Service into quite a high up position raises a whole load of other questions in my mind.
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
You can argue the rights and wrongs of it and frankly, I don't really care. But the answer to your question is that he wants and is willing to pay for police protection because he will not be able to have armed protection otherwise.
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
The general risk against him is higher than the other members of the Royal family without armed police protection. A risk assessment should be made but it does not require a specific threat to be known to justify armed protection.
What's happened to all the Boris fans on here? Some of the most ardent and prolific posters on PB.
You couldn't navigate your way around the site for adoring posts from Isam Philip Thompson DavidL Sandpit RobD Felix the Two Bigs Carlotta etc
Now we seem to have just the lonesome voice of HYUFD. What's happened to the famous Blue Rosette loyalty?
They are in the bunker, hatches battened down, especially Bart Simpson who has gone from 24x7 posting to invisible.
Hello Malky. Nice sunny morning and blue sky here. I hope the ponies were good for you yesterday.
I had one placed , that meant I cleared my feet but not rich yet.
Hope the Scots, Irish and Welsh around here are all in good form this fine morning! Certain other PBers are a bit down in the dumps.
I think Scot Tories have done ok out of this, tbh. Could've been a lot worse. Have to grudgingly accept that Ross neutralised the threat with impeccable timing.
Labour remain incredibly weak north of the border. I had high hopes for Sarwar...
I like both Ross and Sarwar. I think they are both doing reasonably well in truly appalling circumstances for their respective parties. Ross played an absolute blinder this week. Kudos! Sarwar has been strangely invisible for quite a long time now. Huge, huge mistake for SLab to rely too heavily on Big Jackie.
I’m beginning to think the SCons might do surprisingly well in May, due to their unity and backbone. SLDs ditto. I suspect Sarwar is going to have some explaining to do after the polling stations close.
I completely agree that Sarwar has been invisible but the Labour vote is well up nationally and it would be surprising if some of that did not bleed into Scotland, despite the lack of effort on Sarwar's part. I think that Labour will improve. The SNP administration in Glasgow is clearly on a mission to make that in Holyrood look good and their zeal has been noteworthy. I can see them losing control and some Labour recovery in the City, if not enough to become the largest party.
How would the SNP lose control without SLab becoming the largest party? The SNP currently only have 35 out of 85 councillors.
D'ye see yer old pals the Greens coming to SLab's rescue, contra their national party's arrangement with the SNP in Holyrood? That might be worth it just to see the volte-face from the hypocrites who whined and whined about them being the Nats' little helpers.
SLab only needs to gain 5/6 seats in Glasgow to be the largest party which is not that much of a stretch. I am not even predicting that SLab will do better than 2017 in Scotland overall and could still go backwards in other councils like Aberdeen. I'm not sure that the Greens are seen as intwuned with the SNP like they are at Holyrood.
I could see something like this quite easily even if Labour do not poll the most votes:
Yet again - YET AGAIN - and I really can’t believe I’m repeating this again…
The SA data was NOT comparing SA with the UK or indeed any other far flung land.
It was comparing SA (Delta) with SA (Omicron) and it found the latter to be a far milder variant. The South Africans were absolutely crystal clear about this, said so emphatically and repeatedly.
Yet they were ignored.
I really don't know what point you're trying to make.
Were the South Africans right? Yes, they were.
Should we have blindly followed their advice and accepted it without hesitation? No, because they might have been wrong. No Government would do that - they would want to see their own data from their own country before taking a view.
If you're upset with the fact we went to Plan B restrictions - blame Boris Johnson - it was his decision after all.
No one is saying we should have followed their advice. Only that we should have looked at their data. Too many in this country influencing decisions failed to do so and so kept on with the utter garbage that Omicron was as dangerous as Delta. It was garbage.
The data and associated commentary was freely available. How do you know that decision makers didn't take a look and give it some thought?
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
I'm not a monarchist but I think that is a bit harsh. His uncles get armed protection (I know because I know one of the officer who provided it) and I would have thought Harry was at greater risk and he is willing to pay. What is the issue?
Indeed. Not a monarchist either but if we are going that way, lets at least stop them being kidnapped or murdered.
My solution to the Harry & Megan dilemma is simple. It is the Danish solution.
Upon their successful independence referendum in 1905, the Norwegians needed a head on state. They asked the Danish crown prince’s little brother to oblige, and he accepted. It was a huge success all round.
Upon our independence we should offer the vacant post to Harry. Baldie Wullie gets England and we get the good one. Megan will be great in a tartan sash. Lots of ginger bairnies. What’s not to like?
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
The general risk against him is higher than the other members of the Royal family without armed police protection. A risk assessment should be made but it does not require a specific threat to be known to justify armed protection.
Is it? Genuine question
Far higher global profile and military background. Not an expert but seems fairly clear cut to me.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
Come now, I'm a big fan of many of the BBC4 dramas that show at 9pm on a Saturday.
Made in Denmark, France, Sweden, Iceland, Belgium, Germany etc.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
what country's TV would you recommend? The US?
German TV (ARD/ZDF) suits me - lots of serious drama, reasonably balanced news coverage, some entertainment and culture. I wouldn't inflict it on everyone, but I'm glad it's out there. Likewise the BBC. Watching TV without ads is a huge bonus as far as I'm concerned - dipping into my neighbour's Sky channels, it was the ads as much as the crapness of the programmes that made me glad I don't get it. She pays £80/month!!
Yes, even RAI in Italy and ERT in Greece are still also able to produce drama and culture of the quality BBC was once able to match. But Britain suffered a complete crisis of confidence in the public rather than market ethos which television, rather than radio broadcasting, has still not really recovered from.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
The BBC are always late to the party and always back the wrong horse. IPlayer was originally a 30 day catch up service only and they went for the buy to own download model with BBC store, which was a total disaster, as opposed to streaming. It is only relatively recently IPlayer has evolved into what it is today.
The BBC cannot accept the need to change its funding model which has affected its muddy thinking.
The BBC has fewer and fewer viewers and this trend will continue. Irrespective of the odd big hit that comes along.
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
I'm not a monarchist but I think that is a bit harsh. His uncles get armed protection (I know because I know one of the officer who provided it) and I would have thought Harry was at greater risk and he is willing to pay. What is the issue?
Indeed. Not a monarchist either but if we are going that way, lets at least stop them being kidnapped or murdered.
My solution to the Harry & Megan dilemma is simple. It is the Danish solution.
Upon their successful independence referendum in 1905, the Norwegians needed a head on state. They asked the Danish crown prince’s little brother to oblige, and he accepted. It was a huge success all round.
Upon our independence we should offer the vacant post to Harry. Baldie Wullie gets England and we get the good one. Megan will be great in a tartan sash. Lots of ginger bairnies. What’s not to like?
Do you really think Meghan will swap sunny, celeb filled California for cold, dark non celeb filled Scotland?
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
The BBC are always late to the party and always back the wrong horse. IPlayer was originally a 30 day catch up service only and they went for the buy to own download model with BBC store, which was a total disaster, as opposed to streaming. It is only relatively recently IPlayer has evolved into what it is today.
The BBC cannot accept the need to change its funding model which has affected its muddy thinking.
The BBC has fewer and fewer viewers and this trend will continue. Irrespective of the odd big hit that comes along.
BBC Radio reaches 30m+ a week. Adverts would kill it.
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I suspect his private team say they can’t do the job properly unless armed
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
Come now, I'm a big fan of many of the BBC4 dramas that show at 9pm on a Saturday.
Made in Denmark, France, Sweden, Iceland, Belgium, Germany etc.
Defo - the iconic BBC4 Sat 9 pm slot. Life enhancing.
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
I'm not a monarchist but I think that is a bit harsh. His uncles get armed protection (I know because I know one of the officer who provided it) and I would have thought Harry was at greater risk and he is willing to pay. What is the issue?
Indeed. Not a monarchist either but if we are going that way, lets at least stop them being kidnapped or murdered.
My solution to the Harry & Megan dilemma is simple. It is the Danish solution.
Upon their successful independence referendum in 1905, the Norwegians needed a head on state. They asked the Danish crown prince’s little brother to oblige, and he accepted. It was a huge success all round.
Upon our independence we should offer the vacant post to Harry. Baldie Wullie gets England and we get the good one. Megan will be great in a tartan sash. Lots of ginger bairnies. What’s not to like?
Do you really think Meghan will swap sunny, celeb filled California for cold, dark non celeb filled Scotland?
In that respect they will only be following in the footsteps of previous head of state Sean Connery, who rarely set foot in the land...
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
That’s one way of getting bad news for the government off the BBC - nothing they like talking about more than themselves.
On the substantive point, the licence fee is possibly the single most regressive tax extant, results in 10% of magistrates’ court cases and is an anachronism in a 21st century of media being online.
Fund public service broadcasting from general taxation, and let the BBC fund itself via voluntary subscription or advertising.
I'm finding it quite tiresome hearing of all these crocodile tears from MPs and voters who were more than happy to vote for and support Boris when it suited them. They got exactly what they voted for.
They were more than happy to foist an inadequate on the rest of us. Now that they've finally realised what the rest of us worked out a while ago, we're expected to sympathise with their boo-hooing and get behind whichever other inadequate and previous Boris supporter they want to foist on us again.
Er..... no.
I still don’t like the constant referring of Sue Gray as not independent - maybe it’s just me, my gut feel is it comes across as politically partisan attack on her and quality of her work.
She’s employed by the civil service and her ultimate boss (Boris) is one of the people she is investigating. I just see her as being given an impossible no win task that no one could perform at the best of times even if you ignore the scrutiny the report will be under when it’s released.
David Green has a great overview on why the report won’t please anyone https://t.co/L6UTIrkB5T
Is she employed by the Civil Service though. I thought her job record was somewhat strange, implying another employer.
"Second Permanent Secretary to Cabinet Office" sounds awfully like being employed by the CS.
Indeed but, unless I'm very much mistaken, she seems to have spent some time running a pub in N. Ireland. Now I'm sure Ms Cyclefree's daughter would be interested to know that one can go straight from that role to quite a senior Civil Service position.
Well, indeed. And with a mother who is a trained and experienced investigator.
Mind you, running a pub in NI during the Troubles then moving into the Civil Service into quite a high up position raises a whole load of other questions in my mind.
Really? You surprise me! Didn't realise it was during the Troubles either. (innocent face)
"Sir Tony Blair tells T&G he will not join Keir Starmer in calling for Boris Johnson to resign: "I was in Downing Street for 10 years, I understand how these things happen. You can explain it, but you can't excuse it. It shouldn't have been allowed to happen."
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
I'm not a monarchist but I think that is a bit harsh. His uncles get armed protection (I know because I know one of the officer who provided it) and I would have thought Harry was at greater risk and he is willing to pay. What is the issue?
Indeed. Not a monarchist either but if we are going that way, lets at least stop them being kidnapped or murdered.
My solution to the Harry & Megan dilemma is simple. It is the Danish solution.
Upon their successful independence referendum in 1905, the Norwegians needed a head on state. They asked the Danish crown prince’s little brother to oblige, and he accepted. It was a huge success all round.
Upon our independence we should offer the vacant post to Harry. Baldie Wullie gets England and we get the good one. Megan will be great in a tartan sash. Lots of ginger bairnies. What’s not to like?
Meghan didn't want to live in London; you have zero chance of persuading her on Edinburgh's significantly less obvious "charms".
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
I'm not a monarchist but I think that is a bit harsh. His uncles get armed protection (I know because I know one of the officer who provided it) and I would have thought Harry was at greater risk and he is willing to pay. What is the issue?
Indeed. Not a monarchist either but if we are going that way, lets at least stop them being kidnapped or murdered.
My solution to the Harry & Megan dilemma is simple. It is the Danish solution.
Upon their successful independence referendum in 1905, the Norwegians needed a head on state. They asked the Danish crown prince’s little brother to oblige, and he accepted. It was a huge success all round.
Upon our independence we should offer the vacant post to Harry. Baldie Wullie gets England and we get the good one. Megan will be great in a tartan sash. Lots of ginger bairnies. What’s not to like?
Do you really think Meghan will swap sunny, celeb filled California for cold, dark non celeb filled Scotland?
Queen of one of the proudest and most ancient realms on the planet? She’d jump at it. We’re great at making folk feel welcome. Well, folk that we like.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
That’s one way of getting bad news for the government off the BBC - nothing they like talking about more than themselves.
On the substantive point, the licence fee is possibly the single most regressive tax extant, results in 10% of magistrates’ court cases and is an anachronism in a 21st century of media being online.
Fund public service broadcasting from general taxation, and let the BBC fund itself via voluntary subscription or advertising.
Why give away all the soft power the BBC provides for global Britain? Absolutely stupid.
I’m always in a dilemma about the bbc. When I think about the licence fee I think that over a year it’s fine price-wise considering what I get out of it - I would possibly pay it just for Radio 4 and bbc sounds. I enjoy the odd documentary on bbc iPlayer, they show the odd good classic film. Occasionally they do a drama I love such as their War and Peace. I watch match of the day in the background on a Sunday morning whilst reading the papers. Enjoy things like “digging for Britain” (apart from when they crowbar in some current issue or insist everything is “ritual”). So on balance it’s not bad.
Where I fall out with it but still in a dilemma is “what is it”? Is it supposed to be an all singing/all dancing platform covering everything from films, docs, news, strictly or is it supposed to be there to do things commercial channels can’t take the financial risk with.
It seems unfair on commercial channels that they have to create dramas or entertainment shows that rely on ads to make them feasible whereas the bbc can throw the same money at a similar show and carry no risk as they have the guaranteed income.
I think maybe they would be better having a two pronged bbc - a “Free BC” which was funded by a smaller licence fee that covered news, docs about things that commercial channels wouldn’t get viewership for, light entertainment for oldies during the day and other programming that doesn’t cost a lot but covers all bases but then add a Beeblfix subscription to cover things like strictly, blockbuster films and expensive dramas about grim people such as the latest bollocks “rules of the game” and then if their output is as good as they think it is then they will prosper and if not then it shows they were just a money pit spending bazillions on the same five presenters doing programmes they have no expertise in etc.
So as I said, I love aspects, hate aspects, don’t know what it’s really for and as moonrabbit almost said it would be missed of it wasn’t there.
Yet again - YET AGAIN - and I really can’t believe I’m repeating this again…
The SA data was NOT comparing SA with the UK or indeed any other far flung land.
It was comparing SA (Delta) with SA (Omicron) and it found the latter to be a far milder variant. The South Africans were absolutely crystal clear about this, said so emphatically and repeatedly.
Yet they were ignored.
I really don't know what point you're trying to make.
Were the South Africans right? Yes, they were.
Should we have blindly followed their advice and accepted it without hesitation? No, because they might have been wrong. No Government would do that - they would want to see their own data from their own country before taking a view.
If you're upset with the fact we went to Plan B restrictions - blame Boris Johnson - it was his decision after all.
No one is saying we should have followed their advice. Only that we should have looked at their data. Too many in this country influencing decisions failed to do so and so kept on with the utter garbage that Omicron was as dangerous as Delta. It was garbage.
The data and associated commentary was freely available. How do you know that decision makers didn't take a look and give it some thought?
Because too many of them were appearing on television dismissing it. Simple really.
How many Tory MPs will dip their hands in the blood...
Lib Dems tabling no confidence motion in PM. Commons probably won't vote on it unless Labour back - and it would be v unlikely to pass. But another attempt to increase pressure.
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
I'm not a monarchist but I think that is a bit harsh. His uncles get armed protection (I know because I know one of the officer who provided it) and I would have thought Harry was at greater risk and he is willing to pay. What is the issue?
Indeed. Not a monarchist either but if we are going that way, lets at least stop them being kidnapped or murdered.
My solution to the Harry & Megan dilemma is simple. It is the Danish solution.
Upon their successful independence referendum in 1905, the Norwegians needed a head on state. They asked the Danish crown prince’s little brother to oblige, and he accepted. It was a huge success all round.
Upon our independence we should offer the vacant post to Harry. Baldie Wullie gets England and we get the good one. Megan will be great in a tartan sash. Lots of ginger bairnies. What’s not to like?
Do you really think Meghan will swap sunny, celeb filled California for cold, dark non celeb filled Scotland?
In that respect they will only be following in the footsteps of previous head of state Sean Connery, who rarely set foot in the land...
And on the odd occasion that he did was an arrogant pompous git according to a few people I knew that came across him
How many Tory MPs will dip their hands in the blood...
Lib Dems tabling no confidence motion in PM. Commons probably won't vote on it unless Labour back - and it would be v unlikely to pass. But another attempt to increase pressure.
Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries This licence fee announcement will be the last. The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors, are over.
Time now to discuss and debate new ways of funding, supporting and selling great British content.
How long to the BBC adds a validation check on iPlayer and talks about adverts on BBC 1 prime time.
Good. She’s right on this. We need to fund the TV transmission and broadcast infrastructure through general taxation and allow the BBC to seek their funding via other means.
Unfortunately for you though, in about 8 weeks she’s shuffled out, and this policy binned as too controversial for poll comeback.
We can but hope Nadine Dorries is exiled to the backbenches for good and for all. However:
Leaving aside the rather sinister way she phrased it, she is on this only issue only correct and the licence fee is insupportable. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC content a month. I could manage without it altogether if I wished. But because I watch a fair amount of live sport on Sky, I have to keep paying the licence fee.
If Sky moves to an all streaming service, and I watch everything on catch up, then I no longer need the licence fee. And I will definitely cancel it.
And that is the way things are moving.
Which means the licence fee will no longer fund the Beeb anyway and they need to find a new model.
It is not the culture war nutters on either side that are getting rid of it, but changing technology and economics. Just as we don't see gangers with scythes working in the fields at harvest time any more.
If the Beeb had any sense, they would have been moving to a subscription model along the lines of Sky but much cheaper for ten years. Indeed, an international subscription model could have worked. Given their back catalogue, the world-renowned news service and the legacy capital resources they have, they could have been Netflix on steroids.
Alas, they do not have any sense. They are too late to the party and it looks to me as though in about 2-3 years they'll fade away, possibly via a merger.
Of course neither of us actually watch the BBC, but isn’t nice to know it’s there?
I shall start calling you Sir Humphrey
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it.
British tv is unwatchable. Literally. Wall-to-wall shite.
True of the main channels. The likes of BBC4 and Sky Arts are better.
Sky Arts. Endless re runs of Tales of the unexpected. Lovely stuff
BBC4 used to make some decent original drama.
And its first few years many superior documentaries and international cinema, like the pre-Birt restructuring BBC2. Now it often shows repeats of Top of the Pops.
However, I still prefer this diminished BBC to the alternatives the Conservatives have in mind.
Yes, in its early days it showed some great documentaries and always showed some archive content. For TV anoraks like me the TOTP reruns have been great. They started with 1976. Prior to that the archives are very patchy. 1972 has only two episodes exist. I ducked out about 1984.
The BBC isn’t just about TV. BBC News is the news source for young people through the app.
I would agree with that. I am not that young but I reckon I spend more time on the BBC website than I do watching BBC TV. And it seems an obvious place to start monetising the service.
Thinking back to the last year by far the best documentary series I saw was OJ Made in America. It was made by the BBC but I watched it on a satellite channel. On the BBC I watched Masterchef, the Professionals. Other than that I struggle to recall a single thing, MOTD occasionally, but not often and, I think, some 100 in the summer? And some news, but again mainly through the website.
The vast bulk of their output is of no interest to me and I slightly resent paying for it. This mild irritation really only raises its head when lovvies come on to explain that it is central to our culture (and their income) or some such nonsense.
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I suspect his private team say they can’t do the job properly unless armed
And aren't prepared to run the risk, why would you? Knives to gunfights...
What's happened to all the Boris fans on here? Some of the most ardent and prolific posters on PB.
You couldn't navigate your way around the site for adoring posts from Isam Philip Thompson DavidL Sandpit RobD Felix the Two Bigs Carlotta etc
Now we seem to have just the lonesome voice of HYUFD. What's happened to the famous Blue Rosette loyalty?
They are in the bunker, hatches battened down, especially Bart Simpson who has gone from 24x7 posting to invisible.
Hello Malky. Nice sunny morning and blue sky here. I hope the ponies were good for you yesterday.
I had one placed , that meant I cleared my feet but not rich yet.
Hope the Scots, Irish and Welsh around here are all in good form this fine morning! Certain other PBers are a bit down in the dumps.
I think Scot Tories have done ok out of this, tbh. Could've been a lot worse. Have to grudgingly accept that Ross neutralised the threat with impeccable timing.
Labour remain incredibly weak north of the border. I had high hopes for Sarwar...
I like both Ross and Sarwar. I think they are both doing reasonably well in truly appalling circumstances for their respective parties. Ross played an absolute blinder this week. Kudos! Sarwar has been strangely invisible for quite a long time now. Huge, huge mistake for SLab to rely too heavily on Big Jackie.
I’m beginning to think the SCons might do surprisingly well in May, due to their unity and backbone. SLDs ditto. I suspect Sarwar is going to have some explaining to do after the polling stations close.
I completely agree that Sarwar has been invisible but the Labour vote is well up nationally and it would be surprising if some of that did not bleed into Scotland, despite the lack of effort on Sarwar's part. I think that Labour will improve. The SNP administration in Glasgow is clearly on a mission to make that in Holyrood look good and their zeal has been noteworthy. I can see them losing control and some Labour recovery in the City, if not enough to become the largest party.
How would the SNP lose control without SLab becoming the largest party? The SNP currently only have 35 out of 85 councillors.
D'ye see yer old pals the Greens coming to SLab's rescue, contra their national party's arrangement with the SNP in Holyrood? That might be worth it just to see the volte-face from the hypocrites who whined and whined about them being the Nats' little helpers.
SLab only needs to gain 5/6 seats in Glasgow to be the largest party which is not that much of a stretch. I am not even predicting that SLab will do better than 2017 in Scotland overall and could still go backwards in other councils like Aberdeen. I'm not sure that the Greens are seen as intwuned with the SNP like they are at Holyrood.
I could see something like this quite easily even if Labour do not poll the most votes:
Lab 36 (+5) SNP 35 (-4) Grn 9 (+2) Con 5 (-3)
I'm not saying that that's impossible, just that the conjunction of SLab not being the largest party and the SNP losing control is unlikely.
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
I'm not a monarchist but I think that is a bit harsh. His uncles get armed protection (I know because I know one of the officer who provided it) and I would have thought Harry was at greater risk and he is willing to pay. What is the issue?
Indeed. Not a monarchist either but if we are going that way, lets at least stop them being kidnapped or murdered.
My solution to the Harry & Megan dilemma is simple. It is the Danish solution.
Upon their successful independence referendum in 1905, the Norwegians needed a head on state. They asked the Danish crown prince’s little brother to oblige, and he accepted. It was a huge success all round.
Upon our independence we should offer the vacant post to Harry. Baldie Wullie gets England and we get the good one. Megan will be great in a tartan sash. Lots of ginger bairnies. What’s not to like?
Meghan didn't want to live in London; you have zero chance of persuading her on Edinburgh's significantly less obvious "charms".
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
I'm not a monarchist but I think that is a bit harsh. His uncles get armed protection (I know because I know one of the officer who provided it) and I would have thought Harry was at greater risk and he is willing to pay. What is the issue?
Indeed. Not a monarchist either but if we are going that way, lets at least stop them being kidnapped or murdered.
My solution to the Harry & Megan dilemma is simple. It is the Danish solution.
Upon their successful independence referendum in 1905, the Norwegians needed a head on state. They asked the Danish crown prince’s little brother to oblige, and he accepted. It was a huge success all round.
Upon our independence we should offer the vacant post to Harry. Baldie Wullie gets England and we get the good one. Megan will be great in a tartan sash. Lots of ginger bairnies. What’s not to like?
Do you really think Meghan will swap sunny, celeb filled California for cold, dark non celeb filled Scotland?
Queen of one of the proudest and most ancient realms on the planet? She’d jump at it. We’re great at making folk feel welcome. Well, folk that we like.
Re:Covid - I see that Labour appears to be gearing up for their Covid policy to involve regular mass testing and ongoing policies of isolation for infected individuals (supported by improved eligibility for “sick” pay). Which probably leads to continued failure to draw lines between “with” and “of” Covid along with the inevitability of some level of restrictions being imposed every winter as the tyranny of the modellers (guesstimating about severity of whatever latest tweak in the virus is circulating) is retained and the NHS performs its annual cries for help.
So depressing.
One benefit of having another couple of years of the Tories - whether they managed to get rid of Johnson or not - is that the Government shall (at least, we fervently hope,) have time to well and truly bury the restrictions.
If Labour were in charge we'd probably have been in a panic lockdown since Omicron first arrived in the country, and we'd probably still be in it until around August bank holiday.
What's happened to all the Boris fans on here? Some of the most ardent and prolific posters on PB.
You couldn't navigate your way around the site for adoring posts from Isam Philip Thompson DavidL Sandpit RobD Felix the Two Bigs Carlotta etc
Now we seem to have just the lonesome voice of HYUFD. What's happened to the famous Blue Rosette loyalty?
They are in the bunker, hatches battened down, especially Bart Simpson who has gone from 24x7 posting to invisible.
Hello Malky. Nice sunny morning and blue sky here. I hope the ponies were good for you yesterday.
I had one placed , that meant I cleared my feet but not rich yet.
Hope the Scots, Irish and Welsh around here are all in good form this fine morning! Certain other PBers are a bit down in the dumps.
I think Scot Tories have done ok out of this, tbh. Could've been a lot worse. Have to grudgingly accept that Ross neutralised the threat with impeccable timing.
Labour remain incredibly weak north of the border. I had high hopes for Sarwar...
I like both Ross and Sarwar. I think they are both doing reasonably well in truly appalling circumstances for their respective parties. Ross played an absolute blinder this week. Kudos! Sarwar has been strangely invisible for quite a long time now. Huge, huge mistake for SLab to rely too heavily on Big Jackie.
I’m beginning to think the SCons might do surprisingly well in May, due to their unity and backbone. SLDs ditto. I suspect Sarwar is going to have some explaining to do after the polling stations close.
I completely agree that Sarwar has been invisible but the Labour vote is well up nationally and it would be surprising if some of that did not bleed into Scotland, despite the lack of effort on Sarwar's part. I think that Labour will improve. The SNP administration in Glasgow is clearly on a mission to make that in Holyrood look good and their zeal has been noteworthy. I can see them losing control and some Labour recovery in the City, if not enough to become the largest party.
How would the SNP lose control without SLab becoming the largest party? The SNP currently only have 35 out of 85 councillors.
D'ye see yer old pals the Greens coming to SLab's rescue, contra their national party's arrangement with the SNP in Holyrood? That might be worth it just to see the volte-face from the hypocrites who whined and whined about them being the Nats' little helpers.
SLab only needs to gain 5/6 seats in Glasgow to be the largest party which is not that much of a stretch. I am not even predicting that SLab will do better than 2017 in Scotland overall and could still go backwards in other councils like Aberdeen. I'm not sure that the Greens are seen as intwuned with the SNP like they are at Holyrood.
I could see something like this quite easily even if Labour do not poll the most votes:
Lab 36 (+5) SNP 35 (-4) Grn 9 (+2) Con 5 (-3)
I'm not saying that that's impossible, just that the conjunction of SLab not being the largest party and the SNP losing control is unlikely.
It's a fair point. I had forgotten how much of a minority they were on the council.
Interesting one. Prince Harry suing the Home Office for the right to fund UK Police privately in their full roles to provide him with security. I wonder what Buck House thinks.
Prince Harry is seeking a judicial review against a refusal of the Home Office to allow him to personally pay for police protection when in the UK.
The US-based Duke of Sussex says his private security team does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad.
He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after stepping back from royal duties in 2020.
Prince Harry says he wants to visit his home country with his family, but needs to "ensure" their safety.
An obvious solution would be to give him whatever protection he had before but charge him for it. Whats wrong with that?
That's what I thought. But think about it a bit more - why should a rich person be able to buy a limited public service which should be provided on the basis of need and risk? When homeowners want extra security they sometimes employ private guards. Would it be right for them to pay the police to patrol their streets even if the need is greater somewhere else?
Also Harry is not denying that he has a security team and that it can provide security. His complaint is that they do not have "adequate jurisdiction". What does he mean by that? Does he mean powers of arrest? But if someone was doing something arrestable his security team would be able to call in the police. And if not that, what?
I think getting licences for concealed weapons in this country is extraordinarily difficult.
Good.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
I'm not a monarchist but I think that is a bit harsh. His uncles get armed protection (I know because I know one of the officer who provided it) and I would have thought Harry was at greater risk and he is willing to pay. What is the issue?
Indeed. Not a monarchist either but if we are going that way, lets at least stop them being kidnapped or murdered.
My solution to the Harry & Megan dilemma is simple. It is the Danish solution.
Upon their successful independence referendum in 1905, the Norwegians needed a head on state. They asked the Danish crown prince’s little brother to oblige, and he accepted. It was a huge success all round.
Upon our independence we should offer the vacant post to Harry. Baldie Wullie gets England and we get the good one. Megan will be great in a tartan sash. Lots of ginger bairnies. What’s not to like?
Meghan didn't want to live in London; you have zero chance of persuading her on Edinburgh's significantly less obvious "charms".
Comments
By the way, employees are *never* “independent” of their employer. Basic fact of life. It’s why a lot of people prefer self-employment. (Where you become a slave to suppliers, customers, intermediaries, banks, customs and tax officials, arbitrary laws, rules and regulations, employees, trade unions etc etc etc…)
Fund local radio and those local TV channels via taxation as a public service and let the BBC fight for its revenue in a free market.
Were the South Africans right? Yes, they were.
Should we have blindly followed their advice and accepted it without hesitation? No, because they might have been wrong. No Government would do that - they would want to see their own data from their own country before taking a view.
If you're upset with the fact we went to Plan B restrictions - blame Boris Johnson - it was his decision after all.
There are lots of members of the Royal Family who do not benefit from armed police protection. So he is no worse or better position than them. Or indeed any other ex-soldier who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If there is a specific risk against him then the police should act and protect him. But a generalised "I want to be able to use my money to buy police protection as if I were still a working Royal" - no.
In any case, I assume from the lack of responses to my question, most PBers will be happy to see Plan B binned.
(I thank @NickPalmer for his reply to the contrary despite disagreeing with him)
The fruits of Churchill’s loins managed to milk the brand for a few generations. Ditto Kennedy and probably many others. But if your surname is Johnson and you remotely resemble the oaf, get the deed poll in pronto.
Seriously, it still makes some great programmes when it puts its mind to it, but I never have time to watch them live and if I watch on catch up I could just buy them/rent them there and then. So what's the point of a licence fee? It's a genuine anachronism and it's incredibly frustrating that the BBC have decided to cling to it past all reason rather than be pro-active about planning for life after it. They should have seen any extension beyond 2011 frankly as a bonus, and been creating a revenue stream away from it that would support them.
I am independent of you.
Unlike poor Sue Gray having to humour the Oaf.
Interesting to hear an Australian immigration lawyer this morning describe the Immigration Minister's powers as 'God-like' and hoping that this case might lead to curtailment of those powers.
I think that gas prices in particular will fall.
The risk is that disruptions in China interfere with the supply of many essential products, particularly chips, pushing up prices a lot but if that is not the case I think that the risk of inflation is slightly overstated.
With one bound he was free
For a Town Council election. Not even a particularly huge town (15,000), and one where the council is dominated by Conservatives.
Do you think they're scared?
On the other hand, many fit and healthy people are involuntarily infertile. Life can be very arbitrary and cruel.
There is still a lot of good television being made in Continental Europe, however.
I'd say the same of anyone in her post who has been given the particular restricted remit she has.
It's the safest town in a (safe) constituency. Military, so basically always votes Tory. No discernible Labour presence. The Lib Dems have decided to have a crack at a TC seat for the first time. Usually the local Tories would say "lol, Lib Dems". This time apparently not.
Behavioural change on the scale required can only be achieved by (a) forcibly outlawing just about every food except fruit and veg (and good luck getting that past the electorate) or (b) positive initiatives to help people - the hard slog of public health campaigns, GPs being given the cash to prescribe interventions like gym and slimming club memberships to fatties, and that cash for grassroots sport (albeit that this and elite funding aren't necessarily an either/or.) Option (b) seems to be the way to go. Let's not have more of the Government being horrible to people, just for a change.
So depressing.
Police resources should be used according to need and risk not on the basis of who can can pay most for them.
If he just wants generalised security he has that and can continue paying for it himself.
He managed to make 2 visits to the U.K. last year without this fuss so what's changed?
BBC4 used to make some decent original drama.
In which case, Her Maj already heads the field.
However, I still prefer this diminished BBC to the alternatives the Conservatives have in mind.
Mind you, running a pub in NI during the Troubles then moving into the Civil Service into quite a high up position raises a whole load of other questions in my mind.
I could see something like this quite easily even if Labour do not poll the most votes:
Lab 36 (+5)
SNP 35 (-4)
Grn 9 (+2)
Con 5 (-3)
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1482671818695659526?s=20
Upon their successful independence referendum in 1905, the Norwegians needed a head on state. They asked the Danish crown prince’s little brother to oblige, and he accepted. It was a huge success all round.
Upon our independence we should offer the vacant post to Harry. Baldie Wullie gets England and we get the good one. Megan will be great in a tartan sash. Lots of ginger bairnies. What’s not to like?
Daily Mirror
Guardian
New Statesman
Daily Express
Desperate Boris launches plot to save job with SIX new policies – including BBC fee freeze
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1550805/boris-johnson-news-new-policy-operation-red-meat-bbc-licence-fee-migrants
Made in Denmark, France, Sweden, Iceland, Belgium, Germany etc.
The BBC cannot accept the need to change its funding model which has affected its muddy thinking.
The BBC has fewer and fewer viewers and this trend will continue. Irrespective of the odd big hit that comes along.
On the substantive point, the licence fee is possibly the single most regressive tax extant, results in 10% of magistrates’ court cases and is an anachronism in a 21st century of media being online.
Fund public service broadcasting from general taxation, and let the BBC fund itself via voluntary subscription or advertising.
"Sir Tony Blair tells T&G he will not join Keir Starmer in calling for Boris Johnson to resign: "I was in Downing Street for 10 years, I understand how these things happen. You can explain it, but you can't excuse it. It shouldn't have been allowed to happen."
Remove the license fee and they can still access news via an app. They may have to pay for it as you do other outlets but so what.
Mind you implying we should keep the,license fee because a few young people access news via an app is classic.
Fund the BBC through general taxation.
Where I fall out with it but still in a dilemma is “what is it”? Is it supposed to be an all singing/all dancing platform covering everything from films, docs, news, strictly or is it supposed to be there to do things commercial channels can’t take the financial risk with.
It seems unfair on commercial channels that they have to create dramas or entertainment shows that rely on ads to make them feasible whereas the bbc can throw the same money at a similar show and carry no risk as they have the guaranteed income.
I think maybe they would be better having a two pronged bbc - a “Free BC” which was funded by a smaller licence fee that covered news, docs about things that commercial channels wouldn’t get viewership for, light entertainment for oldies during the day and other programming that doesn’t cost a lot but covers all bases but then add a Beeblfix subscription to cover things like strictly, blockbuster films and expensive dramas about grim people such as the latest bollocks “rules of the game” and then if their output is as good as they think it is then they will prosper and if not then it shows they were just a money pit spending bazillions on the same five presenters doing programmes they have no expertise in etc.
So as I said, I love aspects, hate aspects, don’t know what it’s really for and as moonrabbit almost said it would be missed of it wasn’t there.
This is classic short term thinking that will make us all poorer in the long run.
Lib Dems tabling no confidence motion in PM. Commons probably won't vote on it unless Labour back - and it would be v unlikely to pass. But another attempt to increase pressure.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60014813
Thinking back to the last year by far the best documentary series I saw was OJ Made in America. It was made by the BBC but I watched it on a satellite channel. On the BBC I watched Masterchef, the Professionals. Other than that I struggle to recall a single thing, MOTD occasionally, but not often and, I think, some 100 in the summer? And some news, but again mainly through the website.
The vast bulk of their output is of no interest to me and I slightly resent paying for it. This mild irritation really only raises its head when lovvies come on to explain that it is central to our culture (and their income) or some such nonsense.
If Labour were in charge we'd probably have been in a panic lockdown since Omicron first arrived in the country, and we'd probably still be in it until around August bank holiday.