It's the broad cheesy smiles that really blow my mind.
The picture of the queen, the plastic butcher's apron and the chavvy mother's mourning hoodie all combine to push the WTFness off the scale.
You didn't mention the pole dancing classes, or how his mother used to work as a stripper. Or Essex, the statementing, or the young lad's bodybuilding.
None of that should distract from Tiktok. For many it does, though.
On Archie thing, nobody believes it was really a TikTok thing right?
Schoolteacher and social worker types love to badmouth families when something bad happens to a child. Working class families, that is. They don't do it when "something happens" at a Clarendon school. They wouldn't dare. That would be a crime against caste. But when it's a proletarian family, "Ooh, she has loads of men in, they all do - I'm not surprised that her child xxxxx". They gossip and think they're in the know.
The denouncers of the notion that there's any kind of a problem requiring government action when a global corporation (even if it weren't Chinese-owned) helps children to spread videos of themselves causing themselves to pass out, and in some cases die, need to take their heads out of their bums. I wonder if a single one of them has heard of the Werther effect? They should put it together with the plague of smartphone and "social media" addiction and see what they get. And no the issue isn't let's all play forensics experts and opine on what happened in one particular case, although the spreading of the idea that Tiktok had nothing to do with it ("it's a red herring", etc.) is certainly of critical interest.
Good use of bold. I assume uncle Vlad is pissed that Winnie the Pooh won't send him shiny new weapons, and it is hate on China day at the server farm?
Think it through: what is happening is exactly what you'd expect if people were alive to, and intelligently minimising the risk of, the whole Werther thing. If there is not in fact a Tiktok thing going on, you satisfy yourself of that and shut up about it, because the best way of engendering a tiktok craze for endangering and killing yourself is to go on about a tiktok craze for endangering and killing yourself OMG. see, I can do it too.
Was speaking to a friend the other day whose daughter is at Cambridge. She told them of a suicide of a friend of hers. Turns out there have been several suicides at Cambridge and scratching deeper, at many other universities also.
Each one an individual tragedy obvs, with as many reasons as occurrences but I can't believe that lockdown was not a factor.
Suicides have always happened at universities, sadly. It is a time of big change for teenagers, and can be quite hard to cope with, especially when their normal support structures disappear. Many people thrive at uni; a few do not.
So the question is whether suicide rates amongst students have increased over the last three years or not.
"New figures published by the Office for National Statistics in May showed the suicide rate for higher education students in the academic year ending 2020 in England and Wales was three deaths per 100,000 students, the lowest rate in four years."
It's the broad cheesy smiles that really blow my mind.
The picture of the queen, the plastic butcher's apron and the chavvy mother's mourning hoodie all combine to push the WTFness off the scale.
You didn't mention the pole dancing classes, or how his mother used to work as a stripper. Or Essex, the statementing, or the young lad's bodybuilding.
None of that should distract from Tiktok. For many it does, though.
And every other paper in the country. They bloody love it. So if they are fed a similar story and none of them take it anywhere what does that tell you?
I'm with Horse on this. It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.
It probably won't happen, but a Faragist revival is the final ingredient (after an undercooked, overexcited PM and a big loss of centrist votes) to make a Canadian scenario possible for the Conservatives.
IF the doomsday predictions about the events of this winter come true, who knows what the political landscape will look like in 2023.
All the main parties' response to the CoL crisis is shoulder shrugging in one form or another. There isn't much else to do.
So much money has been printed by all Western governments in recent years that money is....er....losing its currency.
Meanwhile across the Atlantic the US Senate is voting on a series of time wasting amendments from the GOP to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 .
The debate and voting has been going non stop since 10pm last night !
For some comedy gold Senator Cornyn of Texas accuses Dem Senators of not taking covid tests to avoid missing the votes and putting other senators and staff in danger .
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I agree our flag is so ugly. Like so much else poisonous in this country it is because of political correctness. When we absorbed Scotland and Ireland we had to pretend it was a partnership so we included their flags in our flag. So the beautiful simple English flag was corrupted. However it is well known so we seem to be stuck with it.
The UK is a messy country, with a messy flag. It's remarkable how good it looks despite that.
It's sort of assertive? In a way that a simple saltire, tricolour or US flag isn't.
Was speaking to a friend the other day whose daughter is at Cambridge. She told them of a suicide of a friend of hers. Turns out there have been several suicides at Cambridge and scratching deeper, at many other universities also.
Each one an individual tragedy obvs, with as many reasons as occurrences but I can't believe that lockdown was not a factor.
This still seems unbelievable. Students fenced in at Manchester university.
It probably won't happen, but a Faragist revival is the final ingredient (after an undercooked, overexcited PM and a big loss of centrist votes) to make a Canadian scenario possible for the Conservatives.
I'm starting to think that Liz Truss's tax cuts will be needed just to keep law and order in Britain over the winter, whatever their merits economically.
Farage has created heat from the immigration issue even in prosperous times, imagine what he could do with stories of ever more people being put up in hotels when millions can't pay their gas bills
It probably won't happen, but a Faragist revival is the final ingredient (after an undercooked, overexcited PM and a big loss of centrist votes) to make a Canadian scenario possible for the Conservatives.
I'm starting to think that Liz Truss's tax cuts will be needed just to keep law and order in Britain over the winter, whatever their merits economically.
Farage has created heat from the immigration issue even in prosperous times, imagine what he could do with stories of ever more people being put up in hotels when millions can't pay their gas bills
If Farage doesn't try and take advantage, someone else from the radical/far right will.
It probably won't happen, but a Faragist revival is the final ingredient (after an undercooked, overexcited PM and a big loss of centrist votes) to make a Canadian scenario possible for the Conservatives.
I'm starting to think that Liz Truss's tax cuts will be needed just to keep law and order in Britain over the winter, whatever their merits economically.
Farage has created heat from the immigration issue even in prosperous times, imagine what he could do with stories of ever more people being put up in hotels when millions can't pay their gas bills
Truss’s tax cuts << Sunak’s handouts
Truss will be forced into the handouts she’s so far rejected.
I'm with Horse on this. It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.
On the other hand, even if they end up as a clear also-ran in streaming services (which certainly seems plausible, even likely), are they going to do so badly as to actually go bust? I feel like they'll benefit a bit from inertia on the part of people not bothering to switch services. Do we count "get bought up cheap by some other media giant who keeps the brand name" as them not existing?
Good morning everybody. I thought part of the rise in national insurance costs was to assist with care costs. How does Ms Truss propose to deal with those?
By not caring.
Might be interesting if somebody actually asked her the question!
Good morning everybody. I thought part of the rise in national insurance costs was to assist with care costs. How does Ms Truss propose to deal with those?
By not caring.
Might be interesting if somebody actually asked her the question!
I'm with Horse on this. It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.
On the other hand, even if they end up as a clear also-ran in streaming services (which certainly seems plausible, even likely), are they going to do so badly as to actually go bust? I feel like they'll benefit a bit from inertia on the part of people not bothering to switch services. Do we count "get bought up cheap by some other media giant who keeps the brand name" as them not existing?
It's still a market leader and has 220m subscribers. That's a fuck of a lot of money, and a long way from being bust. Also it is now being bundled into broadband packages and the like. I get Netflix for free because I am with Sky
I get Prime because I use amazon a lot. Netflix plus Prime covers most bases, I find. It is extremely rare there is a show I can't watch, and if I can't I can usually buy it individually
It will probably merge with a rival, eventually, and there will be 3 or 4 enormous streaming services dominating the west. Sadly, I doubt any of them will be primarily British
I'm with Horse on this. It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.
I would say one advantage they have is that like Amazon it covers several different providers. Paramount, Disney, HBO etc are rather more restrictive in what they show AFAICS.
However, whether that will be enough to justify the cost is another question.
But perhaps also lessened the incentive for Ukrainian military commanders to utilise these facilities unless there is no alternative.
They weren't using them for funsies in the first place.
Russia has been targeting educational facilities, irrespective of whether they’re anywhere near the front, since the start. @Luckyguy1983 is, as usual on this, spouting nonsense.
I doubt the Amnesty foolishness will make an iota of difference to where Putin’s forces lob warheads - though it does offer him a threadbare figleaf of sorts.
I'm with Horse on this. It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.
On the other hand, even if they end up as a clear also-ran in streaming services (which certainly seems plausible, even likely), are they going to do so badly as to actually go bust? I feel like they'll benefit a bit from inertia on the part of people not bothering to switch services. Do we count "get bought up cheap by some other media giant who keeps the brand name" as them not existing?
It's still a market leader and has 250m subscribers. That's a fuck of a lot of money, and a long way from being bust. Also it is now being bundled into broadband packages and the like. I get Netflix for free because I am with Sky
I get Prime because I use amazon a lot. Netflix plus Prime covers most bases, I find. It is extremely rare there is a show I can't watch, and if I can't I can usually buy it individually
It will probably merge with a rival, eventually, and there will be 3 or 4 enormous streaming services dominating the west. Sadly, I doubt any of them will be primarily British
If a company like Netflix goes bankrupt, does it mean everyone loses access to the shows they've paid for?
I'm with Horse on this. It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.
On the other hand, even if they end up as a clear also-ran in streaming services (which certainly seems plausible, even likely), are they going to do so badly as to actually go bust? I feel like they'll benefit a bit from inertia on the part of people not bothering to switch services. Do we count "get bought up cheap by some other media giant who keeps the brand name" as them not existing?
It's still a market leader and has 250m subscribers. That's a fuck of a lot of money, and a long way from being bust. Also it is now being bundled into broadband packages and the like. I get Netflix for free because I am with Sky
I get Prime because I use amazon a lot. Netflix plus Prime covers most bases, I find. It is extremely rare there is a show I can't watch, and if I can't I can usually buy it individually
It will probably merge with a rival, eventually, and there will be 3 or 4 enormous streaming services dominating the west. Sadly, I doubt any of them will be primarily British
If a company like Netflix goes bankrupt, does it mean everyone loses access to the shows they've paid for?
Since it's a subscription, yes.
If Amazon did(!) a more interesting question might be, how do you access shows you've purchased?
I checked Netflix's revenue. It is $8bn.... every QUARTER. Around $30 billion a year
Jeez. No wonder the BBC can't compete. Netflix makes more in a quarter than the BBC earns in an entire year. All Netflix has to do with that money is make more TV dramas and documentaries. The BBC has to pay for the entire BBC
I'm with Horse on this. It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.
On the other hand, even if they end up as a clear also-ran in streaming services (which certainly seems plausible, even likely), are they going to do so badly as to actually go bust? I feel like they'll benefit a bit from inertia on the part of people not bothering to switch services. Do we count "get bought up cheap by some other media giant who keeps the brand name" as them not existing?
It's still a market leader and has 220m subscribers. That's a fuck of a lot of money, and a long way from being bust. Also it is now being bundled into broadband packages and the like. I get Netflix for free because I am with Sky
I get Prime because I use amazon a lot. Netflix plus Prime covers most bases, I find. It is extremely rare there is a show I can't watch, and if I can't I can usually buy it individually
It will probably merge with a rival, eventually, and there will be 3 or 4 enormous streaming services dominating the west. Sadly, I doubt any of them will be primarily British
For me, this is actually a positive argument for privatising the BBC. It has a name and some IP, and links to a film division.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
A valid question. Our anthem is tedious. The England flag was nicked from someone else, the union flag looks as contrived as it is.
Worse is that the England team lay the wrong anthem. God Save The Queen is the UK national anthem. Home nations rightly have separate anthems - except England. So we get to here the dirge when it isn't even appropriate.
Jerusalem is a much better song and the English would be wise to adopt it more broadly. Another thing that bothers me about the Union flag is that it fails even on its own terms. There is no representation of Wales in the flag, and the St Patrick's saltire isn't used by the only bit of Ireland that remains in the Union (and in fact was never really used by the Irish at all).
Jerusalem is a breathtakingly good composition. A true classic. The English should embrace it and love it. Many already do.
- “The England flag was nicked from someone else… “
Please clarify. Do you mean that it is a reverse Dannebrogen, the second oldest national flag after the Saltire?
I checked Netflix's revenue. It is $8bn.... every QUARTER. Around $30 billion a year
Jeez. No wonder the BBC can't compete. Netflix makes more in a quarter than the BBC earns in an entire year. All Netflix has to do with that money is make more TV dramas and documentaries. The BBC has to pay for the entire BBC
The BBC is doomed, as it stands
This winter, with people in desperate straits, how easy a target is the licence fee going to look? Even a one year suspension?
I checked Netflix's revenue. It is $8bn.... every QUARTER. Around $30 billion a year
Jeez. No wonder the BBC can't compete. Netflix makes more in a quarter than the BBC earns in an entire year. All Netflix has to do with that money is make more TV dramas and documentaries. The BBC has to pay for the entire BBC
The BBC is doomed, as it stands
There are even BBC dramas on Netflix, the Bodyguard, Peaky Blinders etc
I'm with Horse on this. It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.
On the other hand, even if they end up as a clear also-ran in streaming services (which certainly seems plausible, even likely), are they going to do so badly as to actually go bust? I feel like they'll benefit a bit from inertia on the part of people not bothering to switch services. Do we count "get bought up cheap by some other media giant who keeps the brand name" as them not existing?
It's still a market leader and has 250m subscribers. That's a fuck of a lot of money, and a long way from being bust. Also it is now being bundled into broadband packages and the like. I get Netflix for free because I am with Sky
I get Prime because I use amazon a lot. Netflix plus Prime covers most bases, I find. It is extremely rare there is a show I can't watch, and if I can't I can usually buy it individually
It will probably merge with a rival, eventually, and there will be 3 or 4 enormous streaming services dominating the west. Sadly, I doubt any of them will be primarily British
If a company like Netflix goes bankrupt, does it mean everyone loses access to the shows they've paid for?
Since it's a subscription, yes.
If Amazon did(!) a more interesting question might be, how do you access shows you've purchased?
But this underscores why Netflix won't disappear. Even if its subscriber base collapses, it will still have a highly impressive back catalogue that people will want access to, so it would be a juicy purchase for an even mightier predator like Apple, Google or Amazon
Netflix isn't going to vanish. Its worst-case scenario is that it gets absorbed
It probably won't happen, but a Faragist revival is the final ingredient (after an undercooked, overexcited PM and a big loss of centrist votes) to make a Canadian scenario possible for the Conservatives.
I'm starting to think that Liz Truss's tax cuts will be needed just to keep law and order in Britain over the winter, whatever their merits economically.
Farage has created heat from the immigration issue even in prosperous times, imagine what he could do with stories of ever more people being put up in hotels when millions can't pay their gas bills
Plus Johnson's £3.8 Billion given to Ukraine so far.
I checked Netflix's revenue. It is $8bn.... every QUARTER. Around $30 billion a year
Jeez. No wonder the BBC can't compete. Netflix makes more in a quarter than the BBC earns in an entire year. All Netflix has to do with that money is make more TV dramas and documentaries. The BBC has to pay for the entire BBC
The BBC is doomed, as it stands
You could use that argument about any and every channel such as RTL, ARD, ZDF and the like.
The undercurrent of course is the BBC doesn't carry paid advertising and it's funded out of a licence fee and it's that operating model which is apparently "doomed".
Those who have long held an anti-BBC agenda (presumably because its coverage isn't what you want to hear and challenges you to think a little) will argue it should be up for subscription (I'd argue it should be made available on the basic Freeview package as now). Perhaps if we see household incomes tightening, it'll be he Netflixes of this world who feel the pain as people are forced to subscribe or starve.
And wee Union Jacks on insulation. That’ll do the trick.
Does a Union Jack not give you a warm glow all of its own Stuart?
Only if decent accelerant is applied.
Jesting aside, I have a surprisingly high tolerance level for the Butcher’s Apron, for a despicable, seditious Jock. For example, it is liberally displayed on 2 of our cars. I gave up frowning about them after a few years. I even quite like them on occasion. When I drive like an arsehole fellow motorists just blame ‘engelsmannen’.
I've never liked the Union flag. It's not an ideological thing, I just think it's unattractive. I don't like the colour combination, it's too busy, and it's not even symmetric. It's just an ugly flag. Like our ugly, tuneless dirge of a national anthem. Why are our totems of nationhood so rubbish?
I agree our flag is so ugly. Like so much else poisonous in this country it is because of political correctness. When we absorbed Scotland and Ireland we had to pretend it was a partnership so we included their flags in our flag. So the beautiful simple English flag was corrupted. However it is well known so we seem to be stuck with it.
Nothing is forever. You English are sovereign and can choose independence whenever you like. We Scots are Untermenschen and do not share your privileges.
I'm with Horse on this. It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.
On the other hand, even if they end up as a clear also-ran in streaming services (which certainly seems plausible, even likely), are they going to do so badly as to actually go bust? I feel like they'll benefit a bit from inertia on the part of people not bothering to switch services. Do we count "get bought up cheap by some other media giant who keeps the brand name" as them not existing?
Netflix did a lot of pioneering work on infrastructure; of course, now everyone benefits. They might still have a lead on content, although that depends what you want to watch.
I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.
Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.
Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.
We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.
You do need houses, houses, houses all over the country including the South East. The South East like the entire country has seen its population dramatically rise in a generation thanks to longer life expectancies and net immigration. That should not be be a bad thing but housing hasn't kept up so many people can't get a home of their own.
Unless you want to start major net emigration we need more housing for the people already living here to get a home of their own. North, South, East and West.
If you want to have any immigration at all, which is a very good thing in my eyes to have I don't know about you, then we need even more housing just to stand still let alone sort out the backlog of missing homes.
Net migration is a red herring, whether up or down. Internal migration should be encouraged: that's the point. It is also what happened during the industrial revolution, and after the war with new towns being built. There's nothing new here. Move people, and jobs, and economic activity and prosperity around the country.
Internal migration is a herring. Homes, homes, homes are needed because the population of the country has risen by about 10 million people in a generation and is still rising fast and the housing supply hasn't kept up. You can't solve that with a few soothing words about spreading prosperity, we need a massive and sustained increase in housing supply to address the shortage and to then stand still with rising population levels.
We also need tighter immigration controls to reduce demand. The biggest shortage of affordable housing is in London by far that is where most new property needs to be built, through high rise in particular. In the North East or most of the West Midlands there is plenty of affordable housing already
Tighter immigration controls won't reduce demand, just slow the increase in demand. Demand will still be there, and rising, unless we have net emigration surpassing the rate of native population growth to reduce demand.
Houses are needed either way. There is not plenty of affordable housing anywhere, there are housing shortages across the entire country which is why new homes are being built in the North and Midlands as they're needed just as they are in the South too.
Native population growth is already below replacement level, the UK birth rate is only 1.65 per woman. It is rising immigration that is pushing up demand.
There is not the same need for affordable housing in the North and Midlands, Wales, NI and Scotland, average house prices there are less than half the price of those in the South. There is also in turn not the same need for new affordable housing in the South as in London, house prices in London are a 1/3 higher than those in the South on average
Categorically wrong, native population is growing.
10.79 births/1000 population and 9.07 births/1000 population = growing population even without immigration.
House prices to earnings ratios are too high in the entire country.
Once you take account of native population deaths our population is declining without immigration.
Once you exclude the distortion of London from house price to earnings ratios North of Watford there is not really a problem
I'm with Horse on this. It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.
No chance for Netflix with Disney+ having more than half of all content produced, without overheads of licensing to external companies
I checked Netflix's revenue. It is $8bn.... every QUARTER. Around $30 billion a year
Jeez. No wonder the BBC can't compete. Netflix makes more in a quarter than the BBC earns in an entire year. All Netflix has to do with that money is make more TV dramas and documentaries. The BBC has to pay for the entire BBC
Comments
None of that should distract from Tiktok. For many it does, though.
Think it through: what is happening is exactly what you'd expect if people were alive to, and intelligently minimising the risk of, the whole Werther thing. If there is not in fact a Tiktok thing going on, you satisfy yourself of that and shut up about it, because the best way of engendering a tiktok craze for endangering and killing yourself is to go on about a tiktok craze for endangering and killing yourself OMG. see, I can do it too.
So the question is whether suicide rates amongst students have increased over the last three years or not.
"New figures published by the Office for National Statistics in May showed the suicide rate for higher education students in the academic year ending 2020 in England and Wales was three deaths per 100,000 students, the lowest rate in four years."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/11/university-of-cambridge-launches-inquiry-after-five-suspected-suicides
But it'll be interesting to see figures for 2021 and 2022.
And this as well:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/estimatingsuicideamonghighereducationstudentsenglandandwalesexperimentalstatistics/2017to2020
"but in Syria it was a frequent technique of the insurgent forces to base themselves in Mosques, Schools and Hospitals."
What evidence are you basing that on?
This is what happens when this is a real thing
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/tide-pod-challenge-teens-eat-16839046
And every other paper in the country. They bloody love it. So if they are fed a similar story and none of them take it anywhere what does that tell you?
It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.
All the main parties' response to the CoL crisis is shoulder shrugging in one form or another. There isn't much else to do.
So much money has been printed by all Western governments in recent years that money is....er....losing its currency.
The debate and voting has been going non stop since 10pm last night !
For some comedy gold Senator Cornyn of Texas accuses Dem Senators of not taking covid tests to avoid missing the votes and putting other senators and staff in danger .
https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2020-11-05/university-apologises-to-students-after-erecting-a-fence-around-their-halls-of-residence
Farage has created heat from the immigration issue even in prosperous times, imagine what he could do with stories of ever more people being put up in hotels when millions can't pay their gas bills
Dark times, my friends, dark times.
Truss will be forced into the handouts she’s so far rejected.
The. Media. is. a. disgrace.
I get Prime because I use amazon a lot. Netflix plus Prime covers most bases, I find. It is extremely rare there is a show I can't watch, and if I can't I can usually buy it individually
It will probably merge with a rival, eventually, and there will be 3 or 4 enormous streaming services dominating the west. Sadly, I doubt any of them will be primarily British
However, whether that will be enough to justify the cost is another question.
@Luckyguy1983 is, as usual on this, spouting nonsense.
I doubt the Amnesty foolishness will make an iota of difference to where Putin’s forces lob warheads - though it does offer him a threadbare figleaf of sorts.
If Amazon did(!) a more interesting question might be, how do you access shows you've purchased?
Jeez. No wonder the BBC can't compete. Netflix makes more in a quarter than the BBC earns in an entire year. All Netflix has to do with that money is make more TV dramas and documentaries. The BBC has to pay for the entire BBC
The BBC is doomed, as it stands
- “The England flag was nicked from someone else… “
Please clarify. Do you mean that it is a reverse Dannebrogen, the second oldest national flag after the Saltire?
…
All 3 combined cost less than Sky.
Disney+ and Netflix combined cost about the same as the BBC and deliver much, much more.
Netflix isn't going to vanish. Its worst-case scenario is that it gets absorbed
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-announces-further-1-billion-in-military-support-to-ukraine
NEW THREAD
Cancelled its subscription.
The undercurrent of course is the BBC doesn't carry paid advertising and it's funded out of a licence fee and it's that operating model which is apparently "doomed".
Those who have long held an anti-BBC agenda (presumably because its coverage isn't what you want to hear and challenges you to think a little) will argue it should be up for subscription (I'd argue it should be made available on the basic Freeview package as now). Perhaps if we see household incomes tightening, it'll be he Netflixes of this world who feel the pain as people are forced to subscribe or starve.
https://twitter.com/LauraJedeed/status/1555957274157486080?s=20&t=qEzKf-ks9w6gNKLkmHMlzg
Once you exclude the distortion of London from house price to earnings ratios North of Watford there is not really a problem