This is serious! It looks as if what was immediately seen of the cyberattack against 🇺🇦 was just there to insert malware that under instruction at some time would more or less destroy all the systems. twitter.com/MsftSecIntel/s…
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
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.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
They don't like the BBC because it is a government entity funded by taxes. If it became a private entity funded by capital markets it would be fine for them.
LOL. They don’t like a competent news organisation reporting on their failings. If the BBC offered the same “reporting” as the Mail and the Sun, Dorries wouldn’t be making these threats.
So where are the threats to shut down hostile non-publicly funded news outlets then?
They can’t threaten that that they have little power over.
We can however observe that the current Govt is trying to greatly curtail the right of the populace to protest.
It really isn’t. The BBC will be finished without any intervention from the government if it doesn’t modernise. The current licensing system is archaic.
The irony is that the Tories might be the only people that can save the BBC. The license fee is profoundly doomed. But the Beeb will cling on to it our of fear and inertia, unless someone forces it to change,
Lib Dems asking for a Vote of No Confidence in the PM to be held this week. Labour say they will support, SNP obviously and I suspect the DUP will join in. If the Speaker agrees interesting to see how many Conservative MPS vote in favour or more importantly how many abstain.
Political suicide, surely? You just can't absent yourself from a confidence vote. Sorry, Rishi!
Presumably, the real aim is to tie the entire Conservative Party to Frequent Liar, Silly Old Johnson, and make them queasy at doing so.
EDM. No debate, no vote.
‘tis merely the stuff of politics, and an attempt to attract a bit of media attention.
Nevertheless, it raises the stakes on Starmer making a move once Gray is published. A decision point for the ‘official’ opposition approaches.
Course. The default assumption is that a subscription BBC will toe a political line more closely aligned with Conservative Party thinking, because that will be what the "market" dictates. That may prove to be wildly inaccurate.
But at that point it's a company that answers to shareholders so if that's what the shareholders want it to do then so be it. I think there's also a compelling case for the BBC to limit its news and sports output significantly to satisfy a bare minimum public service requirement. Everything else behind the paywall.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
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.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
Not everyone who opposes the BBC is a Tory or opposes it for political Reasons.
This is about how the BBC is funded not getting rid of it.
The concern being that without a new funding model we will, in effect, be getting rid of it.
I can well believe there are 24 million licence fee payers in the UK but I can also believe that number once it starts dropping will drop very fast indeed.
Yes, it took me a year or two to realise you can stream netflix without a license. Don't have one, don't break the rules*, revel in the radio and websites you lovely people benevolently provide to me
*Except there is a bug in my browser which opens parliament tv at noon on wednesday, because there is unaccountably no radio feed. I don't watch just listen, so prob ok even if deliberate.
PMQ is always live on R5 live if you want to just listen.
There seem to be a number of jobs on the line today.
Djokovic. Does he get vaccinated or retire?
Boris. The ministers serving under Boris who are reliant on his patronage, such as JRM and Dorries. No. 10 staff.
England cricket team (or at least the batters). England cricket selectors. England cricket coaches.
BBC board members.
Has the word "batsmen" been cancelled?
Yes. Because it doesn't describe women cricketers very well. So 'batters' is now preferred by the MCC.
I still use 'batsmen' but that's out of habit. 'Batters' is actually closer to the original word (which was 'bats') so it's a perfectly fair change.
Why not use batsman for men's cricket and batswoman for women's cricket, or batsman for women's cricket if they prefer that term?
Batswoman sounds a bit off. I think they'd go with batsman for both rather than embrace that. Batter works better, I think, for official parlance. But you can keep saying batsman if you like. No problem there. Must admit I do. I haven't, as yet, made the mental switch. Guess I will in due course as time and exposure to the new term works its magic.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
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.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
They don't like the BBC because it is a government entity funded by taxes. If it became a private entity funded by capital markets it would be fine for them.
LOL. They don’t like a competent news organisation reporting on their failings. If the BBC offered the same “reporting” as the Mail and the Sun, Dorries wouldn’t be making these threats.
So where are the threats to shut down hostile non-publicly funded news outlets then?
They can’t threaten that that they have little power over.
We can however observe that the current Govt is trying to greatly curtail the right of the populace to protest.
It really isn’t. The BBC will be finished without any intervention from the government if it doesn’t modernise. The current licensing system is archaic.
The irony is that the Tories might be the only people that can save the BBC. The license fee is profoundly doomed. But the Beeb will cling on to it our of fear and inertia, unless someone forces it to change,
Again, the Tories aren’t interested in saving the BBC. They’re lashing out because they don’t like the headlines arising from their own actions.
Cummings v Johnson at Lying is no contest. Johnson wins in the 1st by knockout. He does against allcomers tbf. Maybe Bernie Madoff could have taken him the distance but Johnson would still have done him on points.
Let's bear in mind that this Cummings story was also the first we heard of the 20 May party and the email invitation to it. that turned out to be true.
Anyway, I give up. I am more firmly convinced than ever that Johnson will go this quarter and am betting accordingly.
There seem to be a number of jobs on the line today.
Djokovic. Does he get vaccinated or retire?
Boris. The ministers serving under Boris who are reliant on his patronage, such as JRM and Dorries. No. 10 staff.
England cricket team (or at least the batters). England cricket selectors. England cricket coaches.
BBC board members.
Has the word "batsmen" been cancelled?
Yes. Because it doesn't describe women cricketers very well. So 'batters' is now preferred by the MCC.
I still use 'batsmen' but that's out of habit. 'Batters' is actually closer to the original word (which was 'bats') so it's a perfectly fair change.
Why not use batsman for men's cricket and batswoman for women's cricket, or batsman for women's cricket if they prefer that term?
Batswoman sounds a bit off. I think they'd go with batsman for both rather than embrace that. Batter works better, I think, for official parlance. But you can keep saying batsman if you like. No problem there. Must admit I do. I haven't, as yet, made the mental switch. Guess I will in due course as time and exposure to the new term works its magic.
I find Flashman to be incontrovertibly correct on all historical issues. Flashman's Lady says that batter was the original term anyway.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
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.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
Not everyone who opposes the BBC is a Tory or opposes it for political Reasons.
This is about how the BBC is funded not getting rid of it.
The concern being that without a new funding model we will, in effect, be getting rid of it.
I can well believe there are 24 million licence fee payers in the UK but I can also believe that number once it starts dropping will drop very fast indeed.
Yes, it took me a year or two to realise you can stream netflix without a license. Don't have one, don't break the rules*, revel in the radio and websites you lovely people benevolently provide to me
*Except there is a bug in my browser which opens parliament tv at noon on wednesday, because there is unaccountably no radio feed. I don't watch just listen, so prob ok even if deliberate.
PMQ is always live on R5 live if you want to just listen.
But they talk over it don't they?
Not in my experience. They do sometimes say X is the MP for Dunny-on- the-Wold. They did occasionally run out of time when Bercow let it drift for ever.
This is serious! It looks as if what was immediately seen of the cyberattack against 🇺🇦 was just there to insert malware that under instruction at some time would more or less destroy all the systems. twitter.com/MsftSecIntel/s…
The Russian kleptocracy are scum. Europe should really move to replace their gas reserves but the Germans are sniveling weasels that are weak in the face of autocrats.
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.
Nope. There were lots of 'experts' on the media - many of them from the bodies advising the Government - claiming that the SA data could not be used as a comparison because SA was a different demographic. Utterly ignoring the fact that we were not comparing SA with the UK but with the same demographic for the previous delta wave. This was the point that Anabobazina was making and that people are still ignoring.
These people were completely wrong - as was being pointed out at the time - but they were then and still are refusing to admit that.
There seem to be a number of jobs on the line today.
Djokovic. Does he get vaccinated or retire?
Boris. The ministers serving under Boris who are reliant on his patronage, such as JRM and Dorries. No. 10 staff.
England cricket team (or at least the batters). England cricket selectors. England cricket coaches.
BBC board members.
Has the word "batsmen" been cancelled?
Only if you only ever use the official terms in the laws of cricket. Otherwise no, say what you like, as shall the custodians of the laws of cricket who prefer batters.
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.
Yet people pay, all the time, for something they find beneficial be it Sky or Netflix or newspapers or Amazon Prime. The list is long. But to get people to pay they have to make people want to subscribe.
I don't think 30m will pay £11.99/month for the BBC. Even though they effectively do now. The BBC has to offer a better value proposition for that.
By 2027 it will at least be £9.99 in real terms.
The addressable market for the BBC isn't just the UK though, ita global. A subscription based BBC that made its own productions in the UK and owned the production houses would be able to offer the programming globally. If this was pursued 5 years ago the BBC would already have 70-80m subscribers all over the world paying ~£150 per year for it. That boat hasn't left the dock yet but it is leaving soon.
My sons in their early twenties don't watch "live" TV. So under a certain age the BBC is sadly now irrelevant.
I was a big flag flyer for the BBC back in the day. As a teenager I was outraged when Morecambe and Wise jumped ship to Thames.
BBC News used to be world class. This week I have been catching up with Partygate through ITV. Tom Bradby"s genuine outrage and incredulity is comedy gold. The BBC would probably feel obliged in the interests of balance to put a pint of Stella in Starmer's hand.
I gave up on BBC News when Johnson's 2019 Cenotaph fiasco was substituted for 2016 footage, yet it still isn't pro-Government enough for Nad.
Twenty years ago I would have been outraged, maybe even ten, but now I don't really care.
This is serious! It looks as if what was immediately seen of the cyberattack against 🇺🇦 was just there to insert malware that under instruction at some time would more or less destroy all the systems. twitter.com/MsftSecIntel/s…
The Russian kleptocracy are scum. Europe should really move to replace their gas reserves but the Germans are sniveling weasels that are weak in the face of autocrats.
That is mind blowing and utterly brilliant. The payoffs from Covid research are surely going to change our world.
Yes.
However effing Boris is selling off the National Vaccine Centre for thruppence before it is even finished.
Not aware of that. We should be looking to develop the industries we have created almost from scratch in this country and ensure that the country gets a return on its huge investment. Do you have a link? Google are not even showing that it exists.
AFAICS the solution *may* be the Wellcome Trust, or perhaps University endowments.
But as an act it is unforgiveably short sighted.
Thanks.
I would be fairly relaxed if the purchaser was the Wellcome Trust (although it might divert investment away from facilities at Dundee University) or shared with our Universities but we would not want such a facility in foreign ownership, I wouldn't have thought.
There seem to be a number of jobs on the line today.
Djokovic. Does he get vaccinated or retire?
Boris. The ministers serving under Boris who are reliant on his patronage, such as JRM and Dorries. No. 10 staff.
England cricket team (or at least the batters). England cricket selectors. England cricket coaches.
BBC board members.
Has the word "batsmen" been cancelled?
Yes, and the revolution has barely got started.
I accidentally stumbled across a conversation on our company intranet recently (which I don't normally read, given that I'm not one of those office-types that spends half their time having coffee breaks and am therefore too busy doing actual work for a living, but anyway,) in which one of the more earnest millennials was asking if all gender-specific pronouns should be cancelled and everyone should be referred to in conversation as "they," in order to be more "inclusive" (i.e. so as not to risk committing a microaggression against anyone who might happen to be transgendered or non-binary, and would be triggered by being referred to incorrectly.)
Sympathetic noises followed.
Give it another five years and people like that will be starting to get what they want out of organisations. It'll be the start of Newspeak. The language for describing embarrassing or forbidden concepts (e.g. words that imply that biological sex exists) will be erased from polite conversation.
There seem to be a number of jobs on the line today.
Djokovic. Does he get vaccinated or retire?
Boris. The ministers serving under Boris who are reliant on his patronage, such as JRM and Dorries. No. 10 staff.
England cricket team (or at least the batters). England cricket selectors. England cricket coaches.
BBC board members.
Has the word "batsmen" been cancelled?
Yes. Actually don’t mind that much as it fits with bowlers and fielders (they are not bowlsmen and fieldsmen for example). Makes it easy with women’s cricket too.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
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.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
They don't like the BBC because it is a government entity funded by taxes. If it became a private entity funded by capital markets it would be fine for them.
LOL. They don’t like a competent news organisation reporting on their failings. If the BBC offered the same “reporting” as the Mail and the Sun, Dorries wouldn’t be making these threats.
They don't talk the same way about left of centre outlets like Channel 4 or the Guardian or the FT. They might not like them but they are not worried about funding mechanisms.
Wikipedia says that the licence fee raises £3.83 billion, which at £159 gives the rather improbable metric of 24 million licences.
Who pays more than that? (and also how is freezing the licence fee = £2bn?]
Why is that improbable?
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.
A lot higher % than I'd thought. I don't think the BBC realises how bad this could be - much further to fall. Although apparently there are some commercial licence holders who do pay more.
Personally I would advance a mixed settlement, with the Government directly funding some and some being paid for by a subscription fee for iPlayer. But that couldn't possibly replace £3.75bn (!) in funding the UK is effectively providing the BBC.
Float the BBC and let it raise money to invest in programming and purchasing UK based production houses rather than allow Sony, Netflix and Disney buy them all up. Make iPlayer subscription only for everything except and some select public service programming which can air on BBC Public Service.
The licence fee is both a blessing and a curse. The BBC will never be able to compete with the three media networks giants (Sony, Disney, Netflix) and we've seen it happen just recently as Sony went in and bought the makers of His Dark Materials, the BBC's major drama show for 2022.
The BBC is materially incapable of investing the same $10-12bn per year that the big three are pumping into TV show production and that's because it is limited by the licence fee and public funding model. The BBC could be a global powerhouse of TV production but it's not. That's because it can't raise the necessary money and invest in production houses, in house production and it can't cut the waste of having 17 replications of duties.
The Tory critics of the BBC don’t like the BBC. They’re not going to go with a plan that leaves the BBC in a powerful position. They want the BBC gone.
They don't like the BBC because it is a government entity funded by taxes. If it became a private entity funded by capital markets it would be fine for them.
LOL. They don’t like a competent news organisation reporting on their failings. If the BBC offered the same “reporting” as the Mail and the Sun, Dorries wouldn’t be making these threats.
So where are the threats to shut down hostile non-publicly funded news outlets then?
They can’t threaten that that they have little power over.
We can however observe that the current Govt is trying to greatly curtail the right of the populace to protest.
It really isn’t. The BBC will be finished without any intervention from the government if it doesn’t modernise. The current licensing system is archaic.
The irony is that the Tories might be the only people that can save the BBC. The license fee is profoundly doomed. But the Beeb will cling on to it our of fear and inertia, unless someone forces it to change,
Again, the Tories aren’t interested in saving the BBC. They’re lashing out because they don’t like the headlines arising from their own actions.
Quite, and also galvanising the core voters at a moment of crisis. This hasn't arisen suddenly now out of a position of love and care for the BBC.
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.
Yet people pay, all the time, for something they find beneficial be it Sky or Netflix or newspapers or Amazon Prime. The list is long. But to get people to pay they have to make people want to subscribe.
I don't think 30m will pay £11.99/month for the BBC. Even though they effectively do now. The BBC has to offer a better value proposition for that.
By 2027 it will at least be £9.99 in real terms.
The addressable market for the BBC isn't just the UK though, ita global. A subscription based BBC that made its own productions in the UK and owned the production houses would be able to offer the programming globally. If this was pursued 5 years ago the BBC would already have 70-80m subscribers all over the world paying ~£150 per year for it. That boat hasn't left the dock yet but it is leaving soon.
My sons in their early twenties don't watch "live" TV. So under a certain age the BBC is sadly now irrelevant.
I was a big flag flyer for the BBC back in the day. As a teenager I was outraged when Morecambe and Wise jumped ship to Thames.
BBC News used to be world class. This week I have been catching up with Partygate through ITV. Tom Bradby"s genuine outrage and incredulity is comedy gold. The BBC would probably feel obliged in the interests of balance to put a pint of Stella in Starmer's hand.
I gave up on BBC News when Johnson's 2019 Cenotaph fiasco was substituted for 2016 footage, yet it still isn't pro-Government enough for Nad.
Twenty years ago I would have been outraged, maybe even ten, but now I don't really care.
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.
Nope. There were lots of 'experts' on the media - many of them from the bodies advising the Government - claiming that the SA data could not be used as a comparison because SA was a different demographic. Utterly ignoring the fact that we were not comparing SA with the UK but with the same demographic for the previous delta wave. This was the point that Anabobazina was making and that people are still ignoring.
These people were completely wrong - as was being pointed out at the time - but they were then and still are refusing to admit that.
There was some confusion out there on that point, yes, but there was also some confusion about (eg) the Fraser Nelson thing. There was, in general, confusion all around and a big gap between the knowledge & understanding of the pundit class and their propensity to opine. But what I'm rebutting is the assertion "the decision makers here took no account of South Africa". This is not so. They were aware of it and did take account of it. Noises from various people on the media doesn't equate to the decision making process. There were lots of inputs to the decision, including some of that noise, and also including South Africa.
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.
Nope. There were lots of 'experts' on the media - many of them from the bodies advising the Government - claiming that the SA data could not be used as a comparison because SA was a different demographic. Utterly ignoring the fact that we were not comparing SA with the UK but with the same demographic for the previous delta wave. This was the point that Anabobazina was making and that people are still ignoring.
These people were completely wrong - as was being pointed out at the time - but they were then and still are refusing to admit that.
There was some confusion out there on that point, yes, but there was also some confusion about (eg) the Fraser Nelson thing. There was, in general, confusion all around and a big gap between the knowledge & understanding of the pundit class and their propensity to opine. But what I'm rebutting is the assertion "the decision makers here took no account of South Africa". This is not so. They were aware of it and did take account of it. Noises from various people on the media doesn't equate to the decision making process. There were lots of inputs to the decision, including some of that noise, and also including South Africa.
There seem to be a number of jobs on the line today.
Djokovic. Does he get vaccinated or retire?
Boris. The ministers serving under Boris who are reliant on his patronage, such as JRM and Dorries. No. 10 staff.
England cricket team (or at least the batters). England cricket selectors. England cricket coaches.
BBC board members.
Has the word "batsmen" been cancelled?
Yes. Actually don’t mind that much as it fits with bowlers and fielders (they are not bowlsmen and fieldsmen for example). Makes it easy with women’s cricket too.
Comments
https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1482658344821313539?s=21
Nevertheless, it raises the stakes on Starmer making a move once Gray is published. A decision point for the ‘official’ opposition approaches.
Do we know the date yet? do Hope I can make it?
NEW THREAD
They did occasionally run out of time when Bercow let it drift for ever.
These people were completely wrong - as was being pointed out at the time - but they were then and still are refusing to admit that.
I was a big flag flyer for the BBC back in the day. As a teenager I was outraged when Morecambe and Wise jumped ship to Thames.
BBC News used to be world class. This week I have been catching up with Partygate through ITV. Tom Bradby"s genuine outrage and incredulity is comedy gold. The BBC would probably feel obliged in the interests of balance to put a pint of Stella in Starmer's hand.
I gave up on BBC News when Johnson's 2019 Cenotaph fiasco was substituted for 2016 footage, yet it still isn't pro-Government enough for Nad.
Twenty years ago I would have been outraged, maybe even ten, but now I don't really care.
I would be fairly relaxed if the purchaser was the Wellcome Trust (although it might divert investment away from facilities at Dundee University) or shared with our Universities but we would not want such a facility in foreign ownership, I wouldn't have thought.
I accidentally stumbled across a conversation on our company intranet recently (which I don't normally read, given that I'm not one of those office-types that spends half their time having coffee breaks and am therefore too busy doing actual work for a living, but anyway,) in which one of the more earnest millennials was asking if all gender-specific pronouns should be cancelled and everyone should be referred to in conversation as "they," in order to be more "inclusive" (i.e. so as not to risk committing a microaggression against anyone who might happen to be transgendered or non-binary, and would be triggered by being referred to incorrectly.)
Sympathetic noises followed.
Give it another five years and people like that will be starting to get what they want out of organisations. It'll be the start of Newspeak. The language for describing embarrassing or forbidden concepts (e.g. words that imply that biological sex exists) will be erased from polite conversation.