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".
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".
I would say that Edinburgh has considerably more "charms" than London. But if they really want that self obsessed attention seeker they are welcome to her.
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".
Not everyone is a Jockophobe.
No, but the rich and posh go to Scotland, overwhelmingly, to kill stuff. Not really her bag. Don't see her as a munroist either.
"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."
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...
Ed Davey MP 🔶 🇬🇧 🇪🇺 @EdwardJDavey · 2h Slashing the funding of a beloved national treasure just because you don't like the headlines on the 6 o'clock news is no way for a responsible government in a democracy to behave.
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.
2 on a Friday night, mate. Wish they did show them more often.
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?
Our local Tory councillors have been out canvassing in Barnes. Their handout leaflet says "We are local residents not national politicians." They must be cursing Boris.
"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."
"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."
Is he looking for a job?
Pretty odd from TB. iirc his chief of staff - jonathan powell was tweeting at length the other day about what a disgrace it was and it would never have happened under Blair or Brown. I think he said they have had more parties in a month than we had in ten years.
BREAKING: The people being investigated by police for dressing up as Boris Johnson outside Downing Street have explained someone dressed up as Sue Gray is investigating them first and if she doesn't find evidence of criminality, the Met can't do anything x
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.
I would like to see the BBC focus more on inform and educate which are too often prioritised behind entertain, especially on TV. Also think they should be allowed/encourage to make more money outside the license fee. I think they could do a lot with online education globally for example that would be great for British soft power and make a profit.
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?
Isn't California now regularly on fire much of the year?
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.
2 on a Friday night, mate. Wish they did show them more often.
I've got nothing against Top of the Pops, at all, but BBC4 was originally intended to be a very specifically highbrow channel. That was the source of its funding, and the increasingly opposite trend is an example of the BBC being allowed too much leeway to be commercial, often in fact by market-minded layers of management.
In the confected tabloid but actually quite widely held view now, the relative disappearance of highbrow programming is because of "political correctness gone mad", which is ofcourse complete nonsense.
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?
Our local Tory councillors have been out canvassing in Barnes. Their handout leaflet says "We are local residents not national politicians." They must be cursing Boris.
Even the MSPs in Scotland are focussing on things like roundabouts, if my leaflet through the door is anything to go by. No mention of the Union, no mention of the joys of subordination to the PM, no siree. Like a LD council election with a mistake in the colour scheme.
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".
Not everyone is a Jockophobe.
No, but the rich and posh go to Scotland, overwhelmingly, to kill stuff. Not really her bag. Don't see her as a munroist either.
Otoh Septics seem to love Edinboro. Perhaps taking over managership of Holyrood with crowds of her countryman gawking adoringly at the gates might have its attractions.
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.
I think John Cleese said all that needs to be said about that in Clockwise.
"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."
Is he looking for a job?
Pretty odd from TB. iirc his chief of staff - jonathan powell was tweeting at length the other day about what a disgrace it was and it would never have happened under Blair or Brown. I think he said they have had more parties in a month than we had in ten years.
Blair isn't stupid, or is well advised. If he calls for a resignation, that's the headline, and people just read that and think If that warmongering bastard wants him gone I want him to stay. So you don't say it expressly, you say it in the small print, and all the Blair haters assume this is tacit support and so hate Johnson even more.
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?
Of course the big point about the attitude to SA data is one that doesn’t have to be used only by those generally opposed to restrictions (on the “if uncertain, assume bad outcomes” precautionary basis which makes far too little of the reality that the restrictions now being routinely proposed in ways that would have been unthinkable even two years ago are potentially devastating for the economy, businesses and individuals impacted alike).
The big failing at the start of the pandemic was that we had data coming out of China and, particularly, Italy, which was dismissed for too long and delayed appropriate measures being taken.
The lessons that many have drawn from this pandemic is that the appropriate response to any potentially emerging threat is to go hard and go early. When arguably the real lesson should be to not dismiss data from elsewhere until you have a high degree of confidence in it, and have real time modelling (where appropriate) that can be adapted at speed and is not always out of date at point of decision making. Along with not giving a monopoly on modelling to focus on one aspect of harm to the exclusion of all others.
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".
Not everyone is a Jockophobe.
No, but the rich and posh go to Scotland, overwhelmingly, to kill stuff. Not really her bag. Don't see her as a munroist either.
Otoh Septics seem to love Edinburgh. Perhaps taking over managership of Holyrood with crowds of her countryman gawking adoringly at the gates might have its attractions.
Queen of American AND Scottish hearts.
There was that film at Christmas you referenced ... A Castle for Christmas ... and the castle is definite in this case (indeed, a choice of old military vs posh hoose a mile apart).
This privatise the BBC thing is another example of little Englanders making Little England even smaller.
It will be 20+ years before we realise what we’ve lost.
What a load of nonsense. It is not privatisation it is alternative means of funding to the license fee.
It is also hardly anything to do with ‘little england’. The problem with this debate is there is too much political about it as opposed to looking at it In means of how,it raises its revenue. I’ve supported license fee abolition for over thirty years and argued it as Infinitum on various classic TV forums with people who have a far more sane approach to license retention than your emotive nonsense.
The only short termism in the whole debate has been from the BBC and it’s inability to grasp the nettle as to alternative means of funding and how is broadcasts shows. Iplayer started off as a thirty day catch up service. BBC store was a shambles. Fewer people are using its services. It’s on borrowed time and when your only,argument to keep it is to say we won’t know what we’ve got told it’s gone you’re scraping the barrel.
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".
Not everyone is a Jockophobe.
No, but the rich and posh go to Scotland, overwhelmingly, to kill stuff. Not really her bag. Don't see her as a munroist either.
Otoh Septics seem to love Edinburgh. Perhaps taking over managership of Holyrood with crowds of her countryman gawking adoringly at the gates might have its attractions.
Queen of American AND Scottish hearts.
There was that film at Christmas you referenced ... A Castle for Christmas ... and the castle is definite in this case (indeed, a choice of old military vs posh hoose a mile apart).
But the neighbourhood of Holyrood is awful, tatty buildings and creepy politicians. Ugh.
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.
There is no reason for the website to not be monetised though. I use the BBC website as I use others.
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".
I would say that Edinburgh has considerably more "charms" than London. But if they really want that self obsessed attention seeker they are welcome to her.
You and Meghan are perhaps looking for different things from life.
But go on, name three things that Edinburgh has for which London has no obvious equivalent. I'll even allow you to say giant pandas if you want.
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.
Fund the BBC through general taxation.
A very slim BBC, possibly. @boulay makes the good point that it’s best split in half, with public service stuff funded from taxation and entertainment stuff funded by subscription.
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.
So should anyone with money be able pay for armed police protection in this country then?
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.
On reflection, the hatred of Carrie is a bit disturbing. It does have a whiff of misogyny about it. But that shouldn't make her immune from criticism or comment.
Fundamentally, it seems that the problem is that she is a poor political advisor. This can be measured against objective criteria - the decline in opinion poll ratings. Johnson and the tories have been in a sharp decline on this front since the Patterson debacle, which was only 2 months ago, to the point where the crisis is now existential. But there is no corrective action, and things keep getting worse. There cannot be any 'shake up' to arrest the decline in No.10, because Carrie is his wife and he is seemingly unable to curb her power.
It seems like they are just going down together, and there is nothing that we can do but watch the tragedy unfold.
I doubt that Carrie was the least bit interested in Paterson.
Remember that Bozo flew back from the climate conference for a boozy lunch with Charles Moore and others from the Spectator, and they told him to save Paterson.
There was an interesting piece in the Oldie by Stephen Glover this month. Glover organised the Garrick dinner and at the end of the article commented "I might add that Boris Johnson is the only guest who has not paid his share and that three of his police bodyguards wolfed sirloin steaks at my expense". Doesn't that snipped just sum up our PM.
Still not a great week for the self entitled and arrogant - Johnson, Andrew and Djokovic all on the ropes!
I think that says a lot about Stephen Glover : you invite someone to a dinner - not a friends’ night out but effectively a business/networking dinner - because ultimately you want something out of him, either inside info, agreement to do something you want, gossip for your paper, influence - whatever it is he was invited for your benefit so it’s pretty normal that you pay. And you know he has protection officers who have to be there so why should they pay (and should they have been given ham sandwiches and a packet of crisps?).
It’s a bit of a cheap shot to cry about that - they didn’t have to invite him and so really their job to pick up the tab.
Disclaimer - I think Johnson is a knob only outdone by JRM but give him shit for the right things not just anything…..
Strange then that everyone else appears to have understood the ground rules of the dinner and paid their share whilst only Johnson appears to have reneged on them. One rule for him...
"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."
Is he looking for a job?
Pretty odd from TB. iirc his chief of staff - jonathan powell was tweeting at length the other day about what a disgrace it was and it would never have happened under Blair or Brown. I think he said they have had more parties in a month than we had in ten years.
Was there ever a time when all the pubs were shut, under Blair and Brown?
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?
Some core Royals only have protection whilst on public duty aiui. No names, obvs.
Compromises are possible - eg where their dwelling is within the cordon of a Royal Palace they get the benefit at no cost. I used to have a friend with a house at St James' Palace, and then a flat in the Royal Mews, and it was always a pain to visit.
I have heard it said that there are many commercial TV and radio stations who, whilst moaning about the dominant position the BBC occupies are not quite as keen on alternative funding models as people might think. Any revised funding model which might involve the BBC seeking a share of the advertising market would be a nightmare for them.
Also, some mention of radio stations - BBC stations have enormous reach and listeners don’t currently pay a penny towards them, and no requirement to do so (if not having a TV). I suspect radio is often a forgotten factor when the politics of it is assessed.
"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."
Is he looking for a job?
Pretty odd from TB. iirc his chief of staff - jonathan powell was tweeting at length the other day about what a disgrace it was and it would never have happened under Blair or Brown. I think he said they have had more parties in a month than we had in ten years.
Was there ever a time when all the pubs were shut, under Blair and Brown?
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.
Fund the BBC through general taxation.
A very slim BBC, possibly. @boulay makes the good point that it’s best split in half, with public service stuff funded from taxation and entertainment stuff funded by subscription.
Funded via general taxation is an even poorer option to the license fee.
Fund the transmission network, and true public service through general taxation but throw it open to all comers. The new local TV channels would be ideal recipients of public service funding. At the moment their content is little more than local news and endless runs of judge Judy and other cheap US imports.
Ed Davey MP 🔶 🇬🇧 🇪🇺 @EdwardJDavey · 2h Slashing the funding of a beloved national treasure just because you don't like the headlines on the 6 o'clock news is no way for a responsible government in a democracy to behave.
Hardly the only reason, it's been a goal for awhile I would have thought.
1. Very few people, old or otherwise, worry about being imprisoned for not paying the licence fee, as they just pay it.
2. "How much do you use the BBC?" reminds me a bit of when a doctor asks me how much I drink - I only confess to half or less of my real consumption.
3. In the immortal words of Joni Mitchell, you don't know what you got till it's gone. I'm not sure the BBC, or the licence fee, is as unpopular as most on here seem to think.
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.
Fund the BBC through general taxation.
A very slim BBC, possibly. @boulay makes the good point that it’s best split in half, with public service stuff funded from taxation and entertainment stuff funded by subscription.
1. Very few people, old or otherwise, worry about being imprisoned for not paying the licence fee, as they just pay it.
2. "How much do you use the BBC?" reminds me a bit of when a doctor asks me how much I drink - I only confess to half or less of my real consumption.
3. In the immortal words of Joni Mitchell, you don't know what you got till it's gone. I'm not sure the BBC, or the licence fee, is as unpopular as most on here seem to think.
The BBC isn’t just about TV. BBC News is the news source for young people through the app.
And ?
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.
People just wont pay for it and it will degrade our cultural soft power via the BBC.
This is classic short term thinking that will make us all poorer in the long run.
This weak line is just one step removed from ‘the cost of everything and value of nothing’ .
If people value it they will pay for it.
It is hardly short term thinking given the longevity of the license fee and where funding of tv and media is compared to when it started back prior,to,the Second World War.
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".
Not everyone is a Jockophobe.
No, but the rich and posh go to Scotland, overwhelmingly, to kill stuff. Not really her bag. Don't see her as a munroist either.
Otoh Septics seem to love Edinboro. Perhaps taking over managership of Holyrood with crowds of her countryman gawking adoringly at the gates might have its attractions.
I have heard it said that there are many commercial TV and radio stations who, whilst moaning about the dominant position the BBC occupies are not quite as keen on alternative funding models as people might think. Any revised funding model which might involve the BBC seeking a share of the advertising market would be a nightmare for them.
Also, some mention of radio stations - BBC stations have enormous reach and listeners don’t currently pay a penny towards them, and no requirement to do so (if not having a TV). I suspect radio is often a forgotten factor when the politics of it is assessed.
I find it a bit of a skewed playing field that, for example, there are four iterations of BBC Radio 1 on sounds. That means that they are potentially taking away listeners from other commercial stations that try to specialise - so Radio 1 dance competes with specialist dance music stations - but the BBC can throw greater financial resources, has a much more obvious presence so can attract listeners more easily, and also can attract “higher quality” presenters as can either pay more or can attract through the kudos/visibility and benefit to the CV of working for the bbc.
There is no need for the BBC to be duplicating these areas and is in fact in my mind unfair competition and really just done for empire building and possibly ego by those at the top.
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.
Fund the BBC through general taxation.
A very slim BBC, possibly. @boulay makes the good point that it’s best split in half, with public service stuff funded from taxation and entertainment stuff funded by subscription.
Funded via general taxation is an even poorer option to the license fee.
Fund the transmission network, and true public service through general taxation but throw it open to all comers. The new local TV channels would be ideal recipients of public service funding. At the moment their content is little more than local news and endless runs of judge Judy and other cheap US imports.
The way I would do it, is to find public service TV programming, rather than public service channels. Allow any producer and any channel to bid for money a little like the lottery, to make highbrow arts, childrens, religious and other programming that wouldn’t otherwise be made by the market. Regional radio and news would be another group. The total in public funding would be a few hundred million, perhaps 10% of what the BBC currently spends. The government would own a share in the programming, and be able to licence it internationally - probably making most of their money back.
The BBC isn’t just about TV. BBC News is the news source for young people through the app.
And ?
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.
People just wont pay for it and it will degrade our cultural soft power via the BBC.
This is classic short term thinking that will make us all poorer in the long run.
This weak line is just one step removed from ‘the cost of everything and value of nothing’ .
If people value it they will pay for it.
It is hardly short term thinking given the longevity of the license fee and where funding of tv and media is compared to when it started back prior,to,the Second World War.
People don't value plenty of things that are useful, or value them only in abstract, that's just human nature. Most things paid for by taxation I don't use and wouldn't voluntarily pay for, but they are necessary and/or beneficial.
"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."
Is he looking for a job?
Pretty odd from TB. iirc his chief of staff - jonathan powell was tweeting at length the other day about what a disgrace it was and it would never have happened under Blair or Brown. I think he said they have had more parties in a month than we had in ten years.
Blair isn't stupid, or is well advised. If he calls for a resignation, that's the headline, and people just read that and think If that warmongering bastard wants him gone I want him to stay. So you don't say it expressly, you say it in the small print, and all the Blair haters assume this is tacit support and so hate Johnson even more.
I do wonder though whether Starmer should have pre-empted the result of the Gray inquiry like this. I mean, he's obviously right, and if students are being fined twelve grand for having parties this lot need to be prosecuted and fined too. But actually, he's now on a possible hook of his own making. Johnson, if he's not accused of law breaking in the report, will now make it about Starmer's lack of judgement, much as Blair did to Howard over Hutton. Whereas, if he had kept quiet, Starmer could have made it into the report being written by somebody who doesn't understand law (which she probably doesn't) and therefore being in effect a whitewash.
That links into so many other issues as well, he could have made it run for months even when Johnson resigns.
1. Very few people, old or otherwise, worry about being imprisoned for not paying the licence fee, as they just pay it.
2. "How much do you use the BBC?" reminds me a bit of when a doctor asks me how much I drink - I only confess to half or less of my real consumption.
3. In the immortal words of Joni Mitchell, you don't know what you got till it's gone. I'm not sure the BBC, or the licence fee, is as unpopular as most on here seem to think.
No one gets imprisoned for not paying the license fee. It’s non payment of the fine.
As for 2, so what and as for 3 Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell, a song in which Joni complains they paved paradise to put up a parking lot, a measure which actually would have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise, something which Joni singularly fails to point out, perhaps because it doesn't quite fit in with her blinkered view of the world. Nevertheless, nice song.
1. Very few people, old or otherwise, worry about being imprisoned for not paying the licence fee, as they just pay it.
2. "How much do you use the BBC?" reminds me a bit of when a doctor asks me how much I drink - I only confess to half or less of my real consumption.
3. In the immortal words of Joni Mitchell, you don't know what you got till it's gone. I'm not sure the BBC, or the licence fee, is as unpopular as most on here seem to think.
No one gets imprisoned for not paying the license fee. It’s non payment of the fine.
As for 2, so what and as for 3 Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell, a song in which Joni complains they paved paradise to put up a parking lot, a measure which actually would have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise, something which Joni singularly fails to point out, perhaps because it doesn't quite fit in with her blinkered view of the world. Nevertheless, nice song.
Haha! Funnily enough I have Alpha Papa on in the background!
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
To me that sounds quite Singapore.
Most importantly, do they work? I'm inclined to call bullshit after checking the numbers for alcohol consumption.
Perhaps surprisingly, it is the countries which have the expensive alcohol that have the huge increases in alcohol consumption.
The most expensive alcohol in the EU is Iceland, Norway, Finland, Ireland, Turkey, Sweden. In all of those countries alcohol consumption per person increased by 10% to 100% between 1996 and 2016.
In most of the rest, with more reasonable prices, downward trends are typically level to minus 20% over the period.
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.
I heard lots of 'treat with care' and 'early days' and 'different population'. That's not dismissal, it's caution. I bet it was in the minds of decision makers when they were weighing up plan B. Bound to have been. Just outweighed at that time by other factors in the overall risk analysis. And it would certainly have been a factor when they decided not to move to a plan C. The notion that was all down to the previous backbench revolt and/or cabinet rebels is simplistic.
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.
Fund the BBC through general taxation.
A very slim BBC, possibly. @boulay makes the good point that it’s best split in half, with public service stuff funded from taxation and entertainment stuff funded by subscription.
I have a little bit of sympathy for this, but more for a slimmer BBC than a very slim BBC.
I also agree though that a reduced BBC would definitely reduce Britain's global soft power. I often return to this, but it's because it's important - before Birt not only cut waste but entirely changed its structure, the BBC had become among the world's experts in *combining* both entertainment with raising a cultural standard, often in the same programmes. Attenborough's programmes that continue are one of the incarnations of this.
It's hard to overstate the damage done by in bringing in McKinsey to destroy what was in some areas 60 years of accumulated expertise in the 1990s, but with the right guidelines some of the damage can be healed and eventually reversed.
Oh fucking hell. That's just awful even by the Grauniad's standards...
Aren't these things all computer generated using an off the shelf package? So if there's an error in the database, i.e. some low level data entry person put the misspelling in the database, it will autogenerate the clue with the same error.
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.
Fund the BBC through general taxation.
A very slim BBC, possibly. @boulay makes the good point that it’s best split in half, with public service stuff funded from taxation and entertainment stuff funded by subscription.
Funded via general taxation is an even poorer option to the license fee.
Fund the transmission network, and true public service through general taxation but throw it open to all comers. The new local TV channels would be ideal recipients of public service funding. At the moment their content is little more than local news and endless runs of judge Judy and other cheap US imports.
The way I would do it, is to find public service TV programming, rather than public service channels. Allow any producer and any channel to bid for money a little like the lottery, to make highbrow arts, childrens, religious and other programming that wouldn’t otherwise be made by the market. Regional radio and news would be another group. The total in public funding would be a few hundred million, perhaps 10% of what the BBC currently spends. The government would own a share in the programming, and be able to licence it internationally - probably making most of their money back.
That is a great idea .My only objection is funding religious drivel . The one thing that needs terminating before anything else is Thought for the day on Radio 4 (AKA virtue signalling AND patronising lecture for the day) .
Just a reminder of some of the governments that hate the BBC.
China and Iran.
Does Boris Johnson really want to be in that group?
Just a reminder of those governments which think that their Parliament should contain church leaders: Iran, Afghanistan and the UK. Same question surely applies.
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.
Fund the BBC through general taxation.
A very slim BBC, possibly. @boulay makes the good point that it’s best split in half, with public service stuff funded from taxation and entertainment stuff funded by subscription.
I've got a little bit of sympathy, for this, but more for a slimmer BBC rather than very slim BBC.
I also agree though that a reduced BBC would definitely reduce Britain's global soft power. I often return to this, but it's because it's important - before Birt not only cut waste but entitrely changed its structure, the BBC had become among the world's experts in *combining* both entertainment with raising a cultural standard, often in the same programmes.
It's hard to overstate the damage done by in bringing in McKinsey to destroy what was in some areas 60 years of accumulated expertise in the 1990s, but with the right guidelines some of the damage can be healed and eventually reversed.
Much as the quality of BBC domestic news coverage has fallen, and I am often annoyed with the diversity bingo, this is true.
The reach of the BBC international service is 4-5x that of our main European competitors. That is important.
The amount of complaining about the BBC from the EU-boosting media is a telltale that is a bot pf a flag.
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.
So should anyone with money be able pay for armed police protection in this country then?
He seems to be more worried about people who might take unapproved* photos of him and his family, than he does any genuine threat against them - except maybe a couple of rotten tomatoes.
Not sure that’s what armed police should be doing with their time, given he decided to leave the family.
*when he says unapproved, he means not commissioned nor able to be monetised by him.
1. Very few people, old or otherwise, worry about being imprisoned for not paying the licence fee, as they just pay it.
2. "How much do you use the BBC?" reminds me a bit of when a doctor asks me how much I drink - I only confess to half or less of my real consumption.
3. In the immortal words of Joni Mitchell, you don't know what you got till it's gone. I'm not sure the BBC, or the licence fee, is as unpopular as most on here seem to think.
No one gets imprisoned for not paying the license fee. It’s non payment of the fine.
As for 2, so what and as for 3 Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell, a song in which Joni complains they paved paradise to put up a parking lot, a measure which actually would have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise, something which Joni singularly fails to point out, perhaps because it doesn't quite fit in with her blinkered view of the world. Nevertheless, nice song.
Haha! Funnily enough I have Alpha Papa on in the background!
"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."
Is he looking for a job?
Pretty odd from TB. iirc his chief of staff - jonathan powell was tweeting at length the other day about what a disgrace it was and it would never have happened under Blair or Brown. I think he said they have had more parties in a month than we had in ten years.
Blair isn't stupid, or is well advised. If he calls for a resignation, that's the headline, and people just read that and think If that warmongering bastard wants him gone I want him to stay. So you don't say it expressly, you say it in the small print, and all the Blair haters assume this is tacit support and so hate Johnson even more.
I do wonder though whether Starmer should have pre-empted the result of the Gray inquiry like this. I mean, he's obviously right, and if students are being fined twelve grand for having parties this lot need to be prosecuted and fined too. But actually, he's now on a possible hook of his own making. Johnson, if he's not accused of law breaking in the report, will now make it about Starmer's lack of judgement, much as Blair did to Howard over Hutton. Whereas, if he had kept quiet, Starmer could have made it into the report being written by somebody who doesn't understand law (which she probably doesn't) and therefore being in effect a whitewash.
That links into so many other issues as well, he could have made it run for months even when Johnson resigns.
Hutton was a judge hearing cases put by QCs. Starmer's thinking is probably: Gray is probably going to find enough to justify a further call to resign, if not, then rubbish her report as she is non-lawyer and (no fault of hers, but) not impartial. Howard had I think committed himself in advance to accepting Hutton. Mistake.
“The PM did not see and was not aware of the email. As he said earlier this week he believed implicitly that this was a work event. He has apologised to the House and is committed to making a further statement once the investigation concludes.” https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1482703491101597700
The BBC isn’t just about TV. BBC News is the news source for young people through the app.
And ?
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.
People just wont pay for it and it will degrade our cultural soft power via the BBC.
This is classic short term thinking that will make us all poorer in the long run.
This weak line is just one step removed from ‘the cost of everything and value of nothing’ .
If people value it they will pay for it.
It is hardly short term thinking given the longevity of the license fee and where funding of tv and media is compared to when it started back prior,to,the Second World War.
People don't value plenty of things that are useful, or value them only in abstract, that's just human nature. Most things paid for by taxation I don't use and wouldn't voluntarily pay for, but they are necessary and/or beneficial.
The BBC certainly isn’t necessary and if it is beneficial to people then they will surely gladly pay to subscribe.
1. Very few people, old or otherwise, worry about being imprisoned for not paying the licence fee, as they just pay it.
2. "How much do you use the BBC?" reminds me a bit of when a doctor asks me how much I drink - I only confess to half or less of my real consumption.
3. In the immortal words of Joni Mitchell, you don't know what you got till it's gone. I'm not sure the BBC, or the licence fee, is as unpopular as most on here seem to think.
No one gets imprisoned for not paying the license fee. It’s non payment of the fine.
As for 2, so what and as for 3 Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell, a song in which Joni complains they paved paradise to put up a parking lot, a measure which actually would have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise, something which Joni singularly fails to point out, perhaps because it doesn't quite fit in with her blinkered view of the world. Nevertheless, nice song.
Haha! Funnily enough I have Alpha Papa on in the background!
Lovely stuff.
Michaels last ever appearance 😥
As a big Partridge and Coogan fan in general , my only criticism of the genre is Alpha Papa which did not seem to be very Partridge like in all (more Frank Spencer in parts?) . Maybe because as a film it was aimed at a wider newer audience. There are some things where Coogan plays serious stuff like in Look of Love where Alan Partridge characteristics comes out more than in Alpha Papa.
The BBC isn’t just about TV. BBC News is the news source for young people through the app.
And ?
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.
People just wont pay for it and it will degrade our cultural soft power via the BBC.
This is classic short term thinking that will make us all poorer in the long run.
This weak line is just one step removed from ‘the cost of everything and value of nothing’ .
If people value it they will pay for it.
It is hardly short term thinking given the longevity of the license fee and where funding of tv and media is compared to when it started back prior,to,the Second World War.
People don't value plenty of things that are useful, or value them only in abstract, that's just human nature. Most things paid for by taxation I don't use and wouldn't voluntarily pay for, but they are necessary and/or beneficial.
The BBC certainly isn’t necessary and if it is beneficial to people then they will surely gladly pay to subscribe.
Tory pensioners will be furiously they have to subscribe to watch Strictly.
The BBC isn’t just about TV. BBC News is the news source for young people through the app.
And ?
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.
People just wont pay for it and it will degrade our cultural soft power via the BBC.
This is classic short term thinking that will make us all poorer in the long run.
This weak line is just one step removed from ‘the cost of everything and value of nothing’ .
If people value it they will pay for it.
It is hardly short term thinking given the longevity of the license fee and where funding of tv and media is compared to when it started back prior,to,the Second World War.
People don't value plenty of things that are useful, or value them only in abstract, that's just human nature. Most things paid for by taxation I don't use and wouldn't voluntarily pay for, but they are necessary and/or beneficial.
The BBC certainly isn’t necessary and if it is beneficial to people then they will surely gladly pay to subscribe.
Exactly, no one gets threatened with a fine for not paying up to SKY.
1. Very few people, old or otherwise, worry about being imprisoned for not paying the licence fee, as they just pay it.
2. "How much do you use the BBC?" reminds me a bit of when a doctor asks me how much I drink - I only confess to half or less of my real consumption.
3. In the immortal words of Joni Mitchell, you don't know what you got till it's gone. I'm not sure the BBC, or the licence fee, is as unpopular as most on here seem to think.
No one gets imprisoned for not paying the license fee. It’s non payment of the fine.
As for 2, so what and as for 3 Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell, a song in which Joni complains they paved paradise to put up a parking lot, a measure which actually would have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise, something which Joni singularly fails to point out, perhaps because it doesn't quite fit in with her blinkered view of the world. Nevertheless, nice song.
Haha! Funnily enough I have Alpha Papa on in the background!
Lovely stuff.
Michaels last ever appearance 😥
He probably doesn’t have any time as busy doing the Meerkat voices for those adverts - something that weirdly surprised me!
The BBC isn’t just about TV. BBC News is the news source for young people through the app.
And ?
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.
People just wont pay for it and it will degrade our cultural soft power via the BBC.
This is classic short term thinking that will make us all poorer in the long run.
This weak line is just one step removed from ‘the cost of everything and value of nothing’ .
If people value it they will pay for it.
It is hardly short term thinking given the longevity of the license fee and where funding of tv and media is compared to when it started back prior,to,the Second World War.
People don't value plenty of things that are useful, or value them only in abstract, that's just human nature. Most things paid for by taxation I don't use and wouldn't voluntarily pay for, but they are necessary and/or beneficial.
The BBC certainly isn’t necessary and if it is beneficial to people then they will surely gladly pay to subscribe.
I said and/or for a reason, and you seem to have ignored that point that people don't always gladly pay for things that are beneficial to society, that's why we have to tax people to pay for them in the first place
So the argument if something is beneficial people will pay for it is complete bunkum. People would gladly NOT pay even for the necessary things if the option were there, seeking to fund only the things they like and/or personally use.
Personally I'm in favour of funding a public service news broadcaster and the entertainment stuff all being subscription. I don't think the BBC can survive in current form, and that it gets attacked from left and right (though more the latter) is a warning sign that it cannot continue as is.
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".
I would say that Edinburgh has considerably more "charms" than London. But if they really want that self obsessed attention seeker they are welcome to her.
You and Meghan are perhaps looking for different things from life.
But go on, name three things that Edinburgh has for which London has no obvious equivalent. I'll even allow you to say giant pandas if you want.
A volcano, a castle on a rock and a proper royal palace rather than a townhouse bought off an aristo with some extensions added on.
The BBC isn’t just about TV. BBC News is the news source for young people through the app.
And ?
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.
People just wont pay for it and it will degrade our cultural soft power via the BBC.
This is classic short term thinking that will make us all poorer in the long run.
This weak line is just one step removed from ‘the cost of everything and value of nothing’ .
If people value it they will pay for it.
It is hardly short term thinking given the longevity of the license fee and where funding of tv and media is compared to when it started back prior,to,the Second World War.
People don't value plenty of things that are useful, or value them only in abstract, that's just human nature. Most things paid for by taxation I don't use and wouldn't voluntarily pay for, but they are necessary and/or beneficial.
The BBC certainly isn’t necessary and if it is beneficial to people then they will surely gladly pay to subscribe.
I said and/or for a reason, and you seem to have ignored that point that people don't always gladly pay for things that are beneficial to society, that's why we have to tax people to pay for them in the first place
So the argument if something is beneficial people will pay for it is complete bunkum. People would gladly NOT pay even for the necessary things if the option were there, seeking to fund only the things they like and/or personally use.
Personally I'm in favour of funding a public service news broadcaster and the entertainment stuff all being subscription.
But there is a crucial question, though. The BBC has been such an important cultural, and in fact global institution, when you look at the legacy of people like Attenborough, partly because for so long it was able to fuse the two. Although I'm disillusioned with some recent output, I think the BBC should probably be given the chance to do so again, possibly with somewhat slimmer rather than very slim funding.
Attenborough is crucial to understanding the pre-Birt BBC. He also made BBC2 what it was as is channel controller in the 1960's, and arguably set a large part of the entire corporation's standard.
Well, hang on, I've been very very slow about this but surely, Game over? Because Gray just has to go to Dom, or if she doesn't, Dom go to her
A senior official invited people to ANOTHER drinks party in the No 10 garden in breach of Covid rules, Dominic Cummings has claimed.
Invitations were allegedly sent out to a "socially distanced drinks" in the garden behind Downing Street on 20 May 2020.
At the time England was still in the first national lockdown, and outdoor socialising was not allowed.
Boris Johnson's former chief advisor says he and another special advisor complained in writing that the event "seemed to be against the rules and should not happen."
In a lengthy post on his Substack newsletter, he wrote: "We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened."
Does this not completely torpedo BJ?
ETA here's Cummings
On Wednesday 20 May, the week after this photo, a senior No10 official invited people to ‘socially distanced drinks’ in the garden.
I and at least one other spad (in writing so Sue Gray can dig up the original email and the warning) said that this seemed to be against the rules and should not 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".
I would say that Edinburgh has considerably more "charms" than London. But if they really want that self obsessed attention seeker they are welcome to her.
You and Meghan are perhaps looking for different things from life.
But go on, name three things that Edinburgh has for which London has no obvious equivalent. I'll even allow you to say giant pandas if you want.
A volcano, a castle on a rock and a proper royal palace rather than a townhouse bought off an aristo with some extensions added on.
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".
I would say that Edinburgh has considerably more "charms" than London. But if they really want that self obsessed attention seeker they are welcome to her.
You and Meghan are perhaps looking for different things from life.
But go on, name three things that Edinburgh has for which London has no obvious equivalent. I'll even allow you to say giant pandas if you want.
A volcano, a castle on a rock and a proper royal palace rather than a townhouse bought off an aristo with some extensions added on.
I only really use the BBC for news, not any of its programmes.
I use ITV/STV for news, mainly because BBC Scotland is blatantly and unashamedly biased and unprofessional. Although I accept it means watching Peston.
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".
I would say that Edinburgh has considerably more "charms" than London. But if they really want that self obsessed attention seeker they are welcome to her.
You and Meghan are perhaps looking for different things from life.
But go on, name three things that Edinburgh has for which London has no obvious equivalent. I'll even allow you to say giant pandas if you want.
A volcano, a castle on a rock and a proper royal palace rather than a townhouse bought off an aristo with some extensions added on.
Now, you see, this is where Westminster City Council went tragically wrong with the Marble Arch mound. Lack of ambition. If they'd made it tens times the width, five times the height, built it out of solid rock and stuck a bloody great castle on top of it then it would've been awesome.
Comments
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.
@EdwardJDavey
·
2h
Slashing the funding of a beloved national treasure just because you don't like the headlines on the 6 o'clock news is no way for a responsible government in a democracy to behave.
It will be 20+ years before we realise what we’ve lost.
Their handout leaflet says "We are local residents not national politicians."
They must be cursing Boris.
https://twitter.com/BBCLauraKT/status/1482344032772792323
In the confected tabloid but actually quite widely held view now, the relative disappearance of highbrow programming is because of "political correctness gone mad", which is ofcourse complete nonsense.
Queen of American AND Scottish hearts.
The big failing at the start of the pandemic was that we had data coming out of China and, particularly, Italy, which was dismissed for too long and delayed appropriate measures being taken.
The lessons that many have drawn from this pandemic is that the appropriate response to any potentially emerging threat is to go hard and go early. When arguably the real lesson should be to not dismiss data from elsewhere until you have a high degree of confidence in it, and have real time modelling (where appropriate) that can be adapted at speed and is not always out of date at point of decision making. Along with not giving a monopoly on modelling to focus on one aspect of harm to the exclusion of all others.
It is also hardly anything to do with ‘little england’. The problem with this debate is there is too much political about it as opposed to looking at it In means of how,it raises its revenue. I’ve supported license fee abolition for over thirty years and argued it as Infinitum on various classic TV forums with people who have a far more sane approach to license retention than your emotive nonsense.
The only short termism in the whole debate has been from the BBC and it’s inability to grasp the nettle as to alternative means of funding and how is broadcasts shows. Iplayer started off as a thirty day catch up service. BBC store was a shambles. Fewer people are using its services. It’s on borrowed time and when your only,argument to keep it is to say we won’t know what we’ve got told it’s gone you’re scraping the barrel.
But go on, name three things that Edinburgh has for which London has no obvious equivalent. I'll even allow you to say giant pandas if you want.
Compromises are possible - eg where their dwelling is within the cordon of a Royal Palace they get the benefit at no cost. I used to have a friend with a house at St James' Palace, and then a flat in the Royal Mews, and it was always a pain to visit.
Also, some mention of radio stations - BBC stations have enormous reach and listeners don’t currently pay a penny towards them, and no requirement to do so (if not having a TV). I suspect radio is often a forgotten factor when the politics of it is assessed.
Fund the transmission network, and true public service through general taxation but throw it open to all comers. The new local TV channels would be ideal recipients of public service funding. At the moment their content is little more than local news and endless runs of judge Judy and other cheap US imports.
1. Very few people, old or otherwise, worry about being imprisoned for not paying the licence fee, as they just pay it.
2. "How much do you use the BBC?" reminds me a bit of when a doctor asks me how much I drink - I only confess to half or less of my real consumption.
3. In the immortal words of Joni Mitchell, you don't know what you got till it's gone. I'm not sure the BBC, or the licence fee, is as unpopular as most on here seem to think.
If people value it they will pay for it.
It is hardly short term thinking given the longevity of the license fee and where funding of tv and media is compared to when it started back prior,to,the Second World War.
There is no need for the BBC to be duplicating these areas and is in fact in my mind unfair competition and really just done for empire building and possibly ego by those at the top.
That links into so many other issues as well, he could have made it run for months even when Johnson resigns.
As for 2, so what and as for 3 Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell, a song in which Joni complains they paved paradise to put up a parking lot, a measure which actually would have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise, something which Joni singularly fails to point out, perhaps because it doesn't quite fit in with her blinkered view of the world. Nevertheless, nice song.
Is... is the Observer's 'speedy' crossword always like this?
https://twitter.com/cjayanetti/status/1482684131448430597
https://www.theguardian.com/crosswords/speedy/1372
Most importantly, do they work? I'm inclined to call bullshit after checking the numbers for alcohol consumption.
Perhaps surprisingly, it is the countries which have the expensive alcohol that have the huge increases in alcohol consumption.
The most expensive alcohol in the EU is Iceland, Norway, Finland, Ireland, Turkey, Sweden. In all of those countries alcohol consumption per person increased by 10% to 100% between 1996 and 2016.
In most of the rest, with more reasonable prices, downward trends are typically level to minus 20% over the period.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1114418/price-level-index-for-alcoholic-beverages-european-union/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption_per_capita
As I see it, the party trick of the UK hang'em and flogg'em alcohol lobby is to jump on an existing downward trend and claim they caused it.
I also agree though that a reduced BBC would definitely reduce Britain's global soft power. I often return to this, but it's because it's important - before Birt not only cut waste but entirely changed its structure, the BBC had become among the world's experts in *combining* both entertainment with raising a cultural standard, often in the same programmes. Attenborough's programmes that continue are one of the incarnations of this.
It's hard to overstate the damage done by in bringing in McKinsey to destroy what was in some areas 60 years of accumulated expertise in the 1990s, but with the right guidelines some of the damage can be healed and eventually reversed.
China and Iran.
Does Boris Johnson really want to be in that group?
Changing the No10 team is necessary but not sufficient.
To get through this we need:
(1) changes in machinery so good decisions are taken and actually delivered;
(2) changes in policy: eg more proportionate approaches to net zero & covid, lower taxes, a focus on growth.
https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1482667195238862857
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1482635201520058373
The reach of the BBC international service is 4-5x that of our main European competitors. That is important.
The amount of complaining about the BBC from the EU-boosting media is a telltale that is a bot pf a flag.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Not sure that’s what armed police should be doing with their time, given he decided to leave the family.
*when he says unapproved, he means not commissioned nor able to be monetised by him.
"This isn't a vote of confidence in the PM and I think at some point this year there will be leadership election”
Says partygate allegations are "hanging around Boris' neck"
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1482702994881888267
Michaels last ever appearance 😥
“The PM did not see and was not aware of the email. As he said earlier this week he believed implicitly that this was a work event. He has apologised to the House and is committed to making a further statement once the investigation concludes.”
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1482703491101597700
Will Sue Gray publish the cc list?
But PM said they were “overreacting” & that Martin Reynolds was his “loyal Labrador”
That’s the account of ex No10 official in Dominic Lawson column today
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1482649828098289677
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QhNDtbmVlM
So the argument if something is beneficial people will pay for it is complete bunkum. People would gladly NOT pay even for the necessary things if the option were there, seeking to fund only the things they like and/or personally use.
Personally I'm in favour of funding a public service news broadcaster and the entertainment stuff all being subscription. I don't think the BBC can survive in current form, and that it gets attacked from left and right (though more the latter) is a warning sign that it cannot continue as is.
About 4 million, or 1.4 million free licenses depending on your year. Plus the 250-500k refuseniks. Plus the no-tv hermits.
For very approx 30 million dwellings.
Attenborough is crucial to understanding the pre-Birt BBC. He also made BBC2 what it was as is channel controller in the 1960's, and arguably set a large part of the entire corporation's standard.
A senior official invited people to ANOTHER drinks party in the No 10 garden in breach of Covid rules, Dominic Cummings has claimed.
Invitations were allegedly sent out to a "socially distanced drinks" in the garden behind Downing Street on 20 May 2020.
At the time England was still in the first national lockdown, and outdoor socialising was not allowed.
Boris Johnson's former chief advisor says he and another special advisor complained in writing that the event "seemed to be against the rules and should not happen."
In a lengthy post on his Substack newsletter, he wrote: "We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened."
Does this not completely torpedo BJ?
ETA here's Cummings
On Wednesday 20 May, the week after this photo, a senior No10 official invited people to ‘socially distanced drinks’ in the garden.
I and at least one other spad (in writing so Sue Gray can dig up the original email and the warning) said that this seemed to be against the rules and should not happen.
https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/parties-photos-trolleys-variants
Barnard Castle ...
75 years of research on human diseases in 1 minute
https://twitter.com/helder_nakaya/status/1482095277813157888?s=21