LOL at Gary Lineker and a movie awards show leading the news, rather than financial Armageddon.
My view hasn’t changed. The BBC either needs to say that presenters have freedom of speech on social media, or that they don’t and need to stay apolitical. They then need to enforce their chosen policy everywhere and all the time, with no exceptions.
Are you really telling me there shouldn't be looser rules for a car show presenter or a sports commentator than a political correspondent?
Should an Antiques Roadshow presenter be prevented from standing for their District Council because it would show their political leanings?
The distinction has always existed for those involved in BBC news. What's utterly muddled - and management is responsible for that - is what rules apply to everyone else, and whether they are fairly applied.
And in terms of the case law, the BBC is on very wobbly ground. See Neil, Sugar etc.
Trying to tighten up enforcement of a rule that is there on paper but everyone has ignored for years is very hard to do well.
Better to start with a blank page and a new set of rules, to be honest.
Anyone who feels that insistence on the right to freedom of speech is 'petulant', simply because it's from someone who criticised the government, doesn't have much respect for the concept.
Of course not, which is why I have repeatedly defended in discussion here linekers right to his views and free speech 🙄
However this has gone beyond that now. It is becoming a stand off where the BBC is effectively disproving the old adage that no one is bigger than the corporation.
The principle at stake is rather larger than either.
And it's Lineker vs the current management (who have their own issues), not the BBC itself.
Just Before I drive off on hols....There are two bites of the cherry. The first will end up as a smudge with opaque words, the second is the Taxman far more painful fir him and others than any freedom of speech row.
Anyone evading tax needs to be dealt with, but I note that those losing the freedom of speech argument (in particular Leon) turn to accusing him of being a tax evader with absolutely no knowledge of the case whatsoever. On the face of it he is a freelancer. If the HMRC can prove otherwise then so be it, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the freedom of speech argument and is just an excuse to smear him.
just an excuse to smear him
well yes, but if you stray in to politics what do you expect ? He works alongside smearmeister Alistair Campbell so this can hardly be a surprise.
LOL at Gary Lineker and a movie awards show leading the news, rather than financial Armageddon.
My view hasn’t changed. The BBC either needs to say that presenters have freedom of speech on social media, or that they don’t and need to stay apolitical. They then need to enforce their chosen policy everywhere and all the time, with no exceptions.
Are you really telling me there shouldn't be looser rules for a car show presenter or a sports commentator than a political correspondent?
Should an Antiques Roadshow presenter be prevented from standing for their District Council because it would show their political leanings?
Robert you are still not getting it.
For better or worse, Gary L is a face of the BBC. He is literally a BBC poster boy. He is absolutely identified with the BBC and no, I couldn't name an Antiques Roadshow presenter beyond the Fimeister.
That said, so is Richard Sharp (absolutely identified with the BBC) and the whole thing is a mess.
But according to the letter of the guidelines, and on the very reasonable assumption that Lineker is very associated with the BBC then it is right that he should be sanctioned.
As for what happens next, I'm sure we are all rubber-necking with disbelief at events and await the "positive direction" final destination.
There are of course two basic issues preventing a successful Lineker BBC fatwa. One - had he been in favour of the policy no action would have been taken. Two - the people declaring the fatwa are Tory plants.
Which all rather demolishes the whole impartiality standards thing. The best case scenario for Davie and Sharp and Johnson is that Lineker is quietly reinstated followed immediately by a HUUUUUGE breaking news story which completely kills the otherwise lethal repercussions of the Tories having to climb down and reinstate Lineker.
Otherwise, Crispbag gets his job back and the impartiality story switches focus wholly onto the Tories. That a portion of their Mince MPs have openly called for a formal investigation is unfortunate...
If he'd been in favour of the policy and tweeted it then he would have been gone in a heartbeat. Lab/all opposition parties - think of what Shami would have said - would have kicked up such a stink that the BBC would have caved instantly.
Dr. Foxy, they should pull down statues of Llewellyn then, for agreeing to terms, reneging on them, and then losing.
In the past, there was a shitload of wars. Conquering = loot and more land to dole out. 'Oppressors' is a very modern take, especially given for a long time (centuries, I think) in England the law differed for Normans (ruling class) and the English.
Better smash the Alexander the Great statues, he didn't let the cities of the Persian Empire cast a democratic vote to decide if they wanted to be conquered or not.
Surely as someone interested in history you recognise that attitudes to aspects of history change over time? And that how people want that history to be memorialised too?
Or do you think there should still be a statue of King George in New York City?
I hope it's not been too quick. Although I imagine after the - unfortunate - events of 2008 the government might be more willing to offer loans and guarantees.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
Anyone who feels that insistence on the right to freedom of speech is 'petulant', simply because it's from someone who criticised the government, doesn't have much respect for the concept.
Of course not, which is why I have repeatedly defended in discussion here linekers right to his views and free speech 🙄
However this has gone beyond that now. It is becoming a stand off where the BBC is effectively disproving the old adage that no one is bigger than the corporation.
The principle at stake is rather larger than either.
And it's Lineker vs the current management (who have their own issues), not the BBC itself.
Just Before I drive off on hols....There are two bites of the cherry. The first will end up as a smudge with opaque words, the second is the Taxman far more painful fir him and others than any freedom of speech row.
Anyone evading tax needs to be dealt with, but I note that those losing the freedom of speech argument (in particular Leon) turn to accusing him of being a tax evader with absolutely no knowledge of the case whatsoever. On the face of it he is a freelancer. If the HMRC can prove otherwise then so be it, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the freedom of speech argument and is just an excuse to smear him.
Yup
Bit like the time a back bencher was promoted to attack a Chief of The Defence staff over expenses. Which was hilarious, since the chap in question was being extraordinary frugal. He’d taken the heads of European armies to a pizza and pasta place where the wine is a tenner a bottle.
In no particular order
1) nothing Lineker did was worthy of much note 2) the reaction by the BBC was ludicrous. 3) football is full of money, to an insane degree. The commentators being expensive is just a part of that 4) in the long run, contracting gigs are going to be going away. Their usage as a way to reduce tax is a farce. Their original purpose has been abused massively.
Merge NI with Income tax and everyone pays the same on all income.
Dr. Foxy, they should pull down statues of Llewellyn then, for agreeing to terms, reneging on them, and then losing.
In the past, there was a shitload of wars. Conquering = loot and more land to dole out. 'Oppressors' is a very modern take, especially given for a long time (centuries, I think) in England the law differed for Normans (ruling class) and the English.
Better smash the Alexander the Great statues, he didn't let the cities of the Persian Empire cast a democratic vote to decide if they wanted to be conquered or not.
Surely as someone interested in history you recognise that attitudes to aspects of history change over time? And that how people want that history to be memorialised too?
Or do you think there should still be a statue of King George in New York City?
Yes, they were built to contain the Welsh and were seen as symbols of oppression. However, since almost all of them were captured by Welsh forces at one time or another (Beaumaris is the one exception) and Harlech was actually Glyndwr's capital from 1405 to 1409, they could also be seen as symbols of liberation.
Plus, they are the finest examples of medieval military architecture not just in Britain but in the whole of Europe.
Dr. Foxy, bastardising history by revisionism informed by ideologies such as Marxism (a literal suggestion of a 'good thing' I read in a Greek history not so long ago) is not understanding it but marmalising history by twisting it.
The ways of thinking of the past, especially centuries ago, cannot be forced into a straitjacket of modern ideologies. That's rewriting history. It's popular with ignorant buffoons who like pretending Europe wasn't 99% white in the middle ages, or that slavery was only done by white people to black people, but for understanding and preserving an accurate representation of history it's a horrendous way to pour deceit into the past.
Pulling down statues because an individual or group decides that's what they want is nothing but exerting by brute force one's will. It isn't democratically, rationally, or legally justified.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
I feel bad for SVB UK employees that will have to go and work at the tower of doom in Canary Wharf. Their location in the square mile is brilliant. I expect clients and employees will drain quite quickly to BoL.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
Not a good partner for startups whenever we've dealt with them so unless they keep the culture exactly as it is and run it at arm's length clients will walk.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
They never did, surely? Nevil Shute's autobiography has some fascinating details on how difficult it was to start up an aircraft manufacturing company in 1930 (well, no surprise!) and in particular he noted the attitude of his banks (note plural) made it much harder.
Dr. Foxy, they should pull down statues of Llewellyn then, for agreeing to terms, reneging on them, and then losing.
In the past, there was a shitload of wars. Conquering = loot and more land to dole out. 'Oppressors' is a very modern take, especially given for a long time (centuries, I think) in England the law differed for Normans (ruling class) and the English.
Better smash the Alexander the Great statues, he didn't let the cities of the Persian Empire cast a democratic vote to decide if they wanted to be conquered or not.
Surely as someone interested in history you recognise that attitudes to aspects of history change over time? And that how people want that history to be memorialised too?
Or do you think there should still be a statue of King George in New York City?
Yes, they were built to contain the Welsh and were seen as symbols of oppression. However, since almost all of them were captured by Welsh forces at one time or another (Beaumaris is the one exception) and Harlech was actually Glyndwr's capital from 1405 to 1409, they could also be seen as symbols of liberation.
Plus, they are the finest examples of medieval military architecture not just in Britain but in the whole of Europe.
Aren’t they all protected monuments?
Just checked - the Castles and town wales of Edward I in Wales are UNESCO sites.
Destroying a UNESCO site puts you in the Taliban box, internationally. Really not the thing.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
I think anyone's heart must sink when they find they are banking with HSBC.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
Dr. Foxy, they should pull down statues of Llewellyn then, for agreeing to terms, reneging on them, and then losing.
In the past, there was a shitload of wars. Conquering = loot and more land to dole out. 'Oppressors' is a very modern take, especially given for a long time (centuries, I think) in England the law differed for Normans (ruling class) and the English.
Better smash the Alexander the Great statues, he didn't let the cities of the Persian Empire cast a democratic vote to decide if they wanted to be conquered or not.
Surely as someone interested in history you recognise that attitudes to aspects of history change over time? And that how people want that history to be memorialised too?
Or do you think there should still be a statue of King George in New York City?
Yes, they were built to contain the Welsh and were seen as symbols of oppression. However, since almost all of them were captured by Welsh forces at one time or another (Beaumaris is the one exception) and Harlech was actually Glyndwr's capital from 1405 to 1409, they could also be seen as symbols of liberation.
Plus, they are the finest examples of medieval military architecture not just in Britain but in the whole of Europe.
Aren’t they all protected monuments?
Just checked - the Castles and town wales of Edward I in Wales are UNESCO sites.
Destroying a UNESCO site puts you in the Taliban box, internationally. Really not the thing.
Yes I know. Drakeford is Welsh Labour. He thinks he's a good guy and therefore above mere rules and facts.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
Not a good partner for startups whenever we've dealt with them so unless they keep the culture exactly as it is and run it at arm's length clients will walk.
It's HSBC. (Like DB) of course they will try to interfere and mess it up.
But at least they have a balance sheet so the pressure is off.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
I think anyone's heart must sink when they find they are banking with HSBC.
Although it does have a certain snob value.
Well, it gives you legitimate reason to say 'my bankers are whores.'
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
They never did, surely? Nevil Shute's autobiography has some fascinating details on how difficult it was to start up an aircraft manufacturing company in 1930 (well, no surprise!) and in particular he noted the attitude of his banks (note plural) made it much harder.
Banks don’t understand software startups at all. They have a pile of money from investors, that drains out over time, not to capital expenditure but on labour, and there’s often a significant time when there’s no actual product.
Banks understand manufacturing businesses, when someone builds a factory and the bank can see it being physically built. Where the product is a half-finished piece of software, on the other hand…
Dr. Foxy, they should pull down statues of Llewellyn then, for agreeing to terms, reneging on them, and then losing.
In the past, there was a shitload of wars. Conquering = loot and more land to dole out. 'Oppressors' is a very modern take, especially given for a long time (centuries, I think) in England the law differed for Normans (ruling class) and the English.
Better smash the Alexander the Great statues, he didn't let the cities of the Persian Empire cast a democratic vote to decide if they wanted to be conquered or not.
Surely as someone interested in history you recognise that attitudes to aspects of history change over time? And that how people want that history to be memorialised too?
Or do you think there should still be a statue of King George in New York City?
Yes, they were built to contain the Welsh and were seen as symbols of oppression. However, since almost all of them were captured by Welsh forces at one time or another (Beaumaris is the one exception) and Harlech was actually Glyndwr's capital from 1405 to 1409, they could also be seen as symbols of liberation.
Plus, they are the finest examples of medieval military architecture not just in Britain but in the whole of Europe.
Aren’t they all protected monuments?
Just checked - the Castles and town wales of Edward I in Wales are UNESCO sites.
Destroying a UNESCO site puts you in the Taliban box, internationally. Really not the thing.
Yes I know. Drakeford is Welsh Labour. He thinks he's a good guy and therefore above mere rules and facts.
From what I recall form visiting a couple of them, the local response will be to arm the castles and man the walls.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
They never did, surely? Nevil Shute's autobiography has some fascinating details on how difficult it was to start up an aircraft manufacturing company in 1930 (well, no surprise!) and in particular he noted the attitude of his banks (note plural) made it much harder.
Banks don’t understand software startups at all. They have a pile of money from investors, that drains out over time, not to capital expenditure but on labour, and there’s often a significant time when there’s no actual product.
Banks understand manufacturing businesses, when someone builds a factory and the bank can see it being physically built. Where the product is a half-finished piece of software, on the other hand…
As someone who has worked in manufacturing for over 30 years, I can assure you bankers dont understand manufacturing either. I sometimes wonder if bankers actually understand banking.
Dr. Foxy, they should pull down statues of Llewellyn then, for agreeing to terms, reneging on them, and then losing.
In the past, there was a shitload of wars. Conquering = loot and more land to dole out. 'Oppressors' is a very modern take, especially given for a long time (centuries, I think) in England the law differed for Normans (ruling class) and the English.
Better smash the Alexander the Great statues, he didn't let the cities of the Persian Empire cast a democratic vote to decide if they wanted to be conquered or not.
Surely as someone interested in history you recognise that attitudes to aspects of history change over time? And that how people want that history to be memorialised too?
Or do you think there should still be a statue of King George in New York City?
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
I think anyone's heart must sink when they find they are banking with HSBC.
Although it does have a certain snob value.
Well, it gives you legitimate reason to say 'my bankers are whores.'
I think they must be the most bureaucratic, irritating and pedantic bank I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with.
Strangely, FirstDirect, which I think is a subsidiary, seems to be ok.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
They never did, surely? Nevil Shute's autobiography has some fascinating details on how difficult it was to start up an aircraft manufacturing company in 1930 (well, no surprise!) and in particular he noted the attitude of his banks (note plural) made it much harder.
He pretty much admits in the book that he was risking prison for being somewhat optimistic in the company accounts. As he put it, quite a few manufacturers in various industry were saved by the war. While their finances were, essentially nationalised, all their debts and obligations were as well.
None of the trustworthy people on twitter are sharing news about Nova Kakhovka. There seems to be new footage of a special forces raid across the river in January.
Dr. Foxy, they should pull down statues of Llewellyn then, for agreeing to terms, reneging on them, and then losing.
In the past, there was a shitload of wars. Conquering = loot and more land to dole out. 'Oppressors' is a very modern take, especially given for a long time (centuries, I think) in England the law differed for Normans (ruling class) and the English.
Better smash the Alexander the Great statues, he didn't let the cities of the Persian Empire cast a democratic vote to decide if they wanted to be conquered or not.
Surely as someone interested in history you recognise that attitudes to aspects of history change over time? And that how people want that history to be memorialised too?
Or do you think there should still be a statue of King George in New York City?
Yes, they were built to contain the Welsh and were seen as symbols of oppression. However, since almost all of them were captured by Welsh forces at one time or another (Beaumaris is the one exception) and Harlech was actually Glyndwr's capital from 1405 to 1409, they could also be seen as symbols of liberation.
Plus, they are the finest examples of medieval military architecture not just in Britain but in the whole of Europe.
Aren’t they all protected monuments?
Just checked - the Castles and town wales of Edward I in Wales are UNESCO sites.
Destroying a UNESCO site puts you in the Taliban box, internationally. Really not the thing.
Yes I know. Drakeford is Welsh Labour. He thinks he's a good guy and therefore above mere rules and facts.
From what I recall form visiting a couple of them, the local response will be to arm the castles and man the walls.
They're a big source of income in that area. One of the few.
Drakeford of course again doesn't get that. He's spent all his life in South Wales which has a different outlook and ethos.
The English talk about a north/south divide but I think it's actually more stark in Wales. At least the north of England has major cities like Newcastle, York, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield. In North Wales the only town of any size at all is Wrexham. It has one dual carriageway and three railway lines, two of them single track and lightly engineered. There is I think only one major factory left since Anglesey Aluminium closed.
You have tourism, you have farming, you have local government and a couple of universities, one of which is very small. That's pretty much it.
None of the trustworthy people on twitter are sharing news about Nova Kakhovka. There seems to be new footage of a special forces raid across the river in January.
Dr. Foxy, they should pull down statues of Llewellyn then, for agreeing to terms, reneging on them, and then losing.
In the past, there was a shitload of wars. Conquering = loot and more land to dole out. 'Oppressors' is a very modern take, especially given for a long time (centuries, I think) in England the law differed for Normans (ruling class) and the English.
Better smash the Alexander the Great statues, he didn't let the cities of the Persian Empire cast a democratic vote to decide if they wanted to be conquered or not.
Surely as someone interested in history you recognise that attitudes to aspects of history change over time? And that how people want that history to be memorialised too?
Or do you think there should still be a statue of King George in New York City?
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
I think anyone's heart must sink when they find they are banking with HSBC.
Although it does have a certain snob value.
Well, it gives you legitimate reason to say 'my bankers are whores.'
I think they must be the most bureaucratic, irritating and pedantic bank I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with.
Strangely, FirstDirect, which I think is a subsidiary, seems to be ok.
I bank with both HSBC and First Direct - they perform as completely different companies!
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
They never did, surely? Nevil Shute's autobiography has some fascinating details on how difficult it was to start up an aircraft manufacturing company in 1930 (well, no surprise!) and in particular he noted the attitude of his banks (note plural) made it much harder.
Banks don’t understand software startups at all. They have a pile of money from investors, that drains out over time, not to capital expenditure but on labour, and there’s often a significant time when there’s no actual product.
Banks understand manufacturing businesses, when someone builds a factory and the bank can see it being physically built. Where the product is a half-finished piece of software, on the other hand…
As someone who has worked in manufacturing for over 30 years, I can assure you bankers dont understand manufacturing either. I sometimes wonder if bankers actually understand banking.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
They never did, surely? Nevil Shute's autobiography has some fascinating details on how difficult it was to start up an aircraft manufacturing company in 1930 (well, no surprise!) and in particular he noted the attitude of his banks (note plural) made it much harder.
He pretty much admits in the book that he was risking prison for being somewhat optimistic in the company accounts. As he put it, quite a few manufacturers in various industry were saved by the war. While their finances were, essentially nationalised, all their debts and obligations were as well.
That was after they tried to rinse him for a hundred guineas and refused him an overdraft facility. In fact, that was partly why he was pushing the envelope as well.
.Its no excuse for the companies with large departments whise only job is to manage hundreds of millions of the company's cash, but you can see why a startup might not have appreciated that SVB wasn't safe as houses.
In many cases they had no choice: if SVB was their RCF provider (and they were often the only bank who was willing to provider an RCF to these companies) they were contractually obliged to keep their cash balances at SVB
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
They never did, surely? Nevil Shute's autobiography has some fascinating details on how difficult it was to start up an aircraft manufacturing company in 1930 (well, no surprise!) and in particular he noted the attitude of his banks (note plural) made it much harder.
Banks don’t understand software startups at all. They have a pile of money from investors, that drains out over time, not to capital expenditure but on labour, and there’s often a significant time when there’s no actual product.
Banks understand manufacturing businesses, when someone builds a factory and the bank can see it being physically built. Where the product is a half-finished piece of software, on the other hand…
As someone who has worked in manufacturing for over 30 years, I can assure you bankers dont understand manufacturing either. I sometimes wonder if bankers actually understand banking.
2007-8 suggested you wonder correctly.
As did my ability to remortgage for five years at 1.68% in February 2022.
Anyone who feels that insistence on the right to freedom of speech is 'petulant', simply because it's from someone who criticised the government, doesn't have much respect for the concept.
Of course not, which is why I have repeatedly defended in discussion here linekers right to his views and free speech 🙄
However this has gone beyond that now. It is becoming a stand off where the BBC is effectively disproving the old adage that no one is bigger than the corporation.
What I don't understand is why the snowflakes don't buy out his contract and tell him to F Off.
Anyone who feels that insistence on the right to freedom of speech is 'petulant', simply because it's from someone who criticised the government, doesn't have much respect for the concept.
Of course not, which is why I have repeatedly defended in discussion here linekers right to his views and free speech 🙄
However this has gone beyond that now. It is becoming a stand off where the BBC is effectively disproving the old adage that no one is bigger than the corporation.
What I don't understand is why the snowflakes don't buy out his contract and tell him to F Off.
None of the trustworthy people on twitter are sharing news about Nova Kakhovka. There seems to be new footage of a special forces raid across the river in January.
What do you make of it all.
There's nothing really to make anything of. There are people on twitter who will share any old crap and make stuff up. I'm glad I had a check of what seemed like unlikely good news before celebrating. Don't know where Cicero was getting his news from, but I assume he'll trust them a bit less in future.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
They never did, surely? Nevil Shute's autobiography has some fascinating details on how difficult it was to start up an aircraft manufacturing company in 1930 (well, no surprise!) and in particular he noted the attitude of his banks (note plural) made it much harder.
Banks don’t understand software startups at all. They have a pile of money from investors, that drains out over time, not to capital expenditure but on labour, and there’s often a significant time when there’s no actual product.
Banks understand manufacturing businesses, when someone builds a factory and the bank can see it being physically built. Where the product is a half-finished piece of software, on the other hand…
As someone who has worked in manufacturing for over 30 years, I can assure you bankers dont understand manufacturing either. I sometimes wonder if bankers actually understand banking.
I've told this story before, but it is relevant. Back in the very early 80s (or maybe even late 70s), Acorn Computers got a big order, and they needed a million quid - far over what they'd asked for previously. They went to their bank into Central Cambridge, met the manager, who hummed and hawwed and said no.
So they went to another bank, asked to see the manager, and asked for a million quid. He said something like: "You're all good Cambridge boys. I know nothing about computers, but here's the money."
With banks, I fear it's like many other spheres of business: the old school tie / contacts can really matter.
As someone who gets irritated by the playground drivel of "Liberal Democrats are neither liberal nor democratic" said as though it is the wisdom of the ages and not just trite drivel, I reluctantly find myself asking what the "Conservatives" are actually trying to conserve?
Is there a single national institution that they have not in someway damaged, tarnished or undermined over the course of the past decade?
The list is long: the BBC, Universities, the Union they profess to be dedicated to, infrastructure spending, 1000 years of English County local government, the constitutional prerogatives of the Monarchy, the NHS, even the power of the City of London and all of the soft power of the UK brand, all that is just the start for the Tory wrecking crew.
The Bullshitters in a China shop have mangled so much, and it is not just English rivers that are full of shit. The political/media complex that has given us such "giants" as Johnson, Gove, "Leon", Peter Hitchens, or Farage is a cynical servant of a cynical and corrupt media world view exemplified by Trump and Murdoch.
So we end up with the spectacle of a Conservative government- a Conservative government- cancelling David Attenborough and then watching the public purse being robbed of tens of millions by corrupt chancers and then packing the House of Lords with said chancers and KGB vatniks. A government that breaks even its own rules on every possible occasion.
The damage these "#¤%s have caused will need a long time, and a radical agenda to fix. I don´t know if SKS has it, but I do know that the Tories must be driven out, bag and baggage.
Some Tories are deeply conservative. Those are not the ones in charge. They've always been proud of being a 'broad church'. Amongst their number are financial right wingers, christian democrats, conservatives, general-anyone-but-labour and the hard right populist nationalists. These are the ones who are in charge now, thanks to Johnson reforming the party with people who backed him. These people are anything but small c conservative.
Anyone who feels that insistence on the right to freedom of speech is 'petulant', simply because it's from someone who criticised the government, doesn't have much respect for the concept.
Of course not, which is why I have repeatedly defended in discussion here linekers right to his views and free speech 🙄
However this has gone beyond that now. It is becoming a stand off where the BBC is effectively disproving the old adage that no one is bigger than the corporation.
The DG and the Chairman must go then.
There are two separate issues. One is very straightforward. The Chairman is plainly a political appointee, so the Corporation will always be in an awkward position when questions of impartiality arise.
The other is whether the Corporation can sanction staff and contributors who cross certain lines when commenting publicly. I'm agnostic on that, but such lines must apply equally to all. That seems to be the problem here. One thinks of, say, Clarkson and Neil, and then has to ask 'How different to Lineker?'. The Beeb has to untwist its knickers on that one going forward for sure.
How does it get itself out of the immediate mess? I'm not sure. If the DG has played a part in creating it, he should resign, but probably won't, and really that one is not big potatoes.
Clarkson’s big show is on Amazon - he’s not associated with the BBC in the same way
Similarly Neil has multiple other jobs and just does the occasional work for them
The difference is - as far as I’m aware - Lineker’s main gig and profile is completely associated with the BBC
(For those people who are critical of Neil having a political view point I think there is a difference between interview/opinion shows and news reporting. Fundamentally if you are watching Neil’s show you are expecting political debate. The issue is that Lineker is (a) associated with the BBC and (b) was talking to a broad group of not very politically involved people - so there is more risk of association
LOL at Gary Lineker and a movie awards show leading the news, rather than financial Armageddon.
My view hasn’t changed. The BBC either needs to say that presenters have freedom of speech on social media, or that they don’t and need to stay apolitical. They then need to enforce their chosen policy everywhere and all the time, with no exceptions.
That is not the problem. Lineker is not taking a political view he's taking a compassionate one. We expect Aunty and it's employees to show compassion. Had Clarkson said the RN should just sink the refugee boats and the BBC took him off air then the argument would be quite different. It would be one of whether we wanted people like that being paid out of the public purse
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
They never did, surely? Nevil Shute's autobiography has some fascinating details on how difficult it was to start up an aircraft manufacturing company in 1930 (well, no surprise!) and in particular he noted the attitude of his banks (note plural) made it much harder.
He pretty much admits in the book that he was risking prison for being somewhat optimistic in the company accounts. As he put it, quite a few manufacturers in various industry were saved by the war. While their finances were, essentially nationalised, all their debts and obligations were as well.
That was after they tried to rinse him for a hundred guineas and refused him an overdraft facility. In fact, that was partly why he was pushing the envelope as well.
He was pushing the envelope to save the company - which kept getting a tiny trickle of orders. Controversial view - was Airspeed worth it? Apart from introducing Mitchell to a working retractable undercarriage….
LOL at Gary Lineker and a movie awards show leading the news, rather than financial Armageddon.
My view hasn’t changed. The BBC either needs to say that presenters have freedom of speech on social media, or that they don’t and need to stay apolitical. They then need to enforce their chosen policy everywhere and all the time, with no exceptions.
Are you really telling me there shouldn't be looser rules for a car show presenter or a sports commentator than a political correspondent?
Should an Antiques Roadshow presenter be prevented from standing for their District Council because it would show their political leanings?
Damn it stop confusing me. I was just about to like @Sandpit post and then you counter with a post I also want to like.
LOL at Gary Lineker and a movie awards show leading the news, rather than financial Armageddon.
My view hasn’t changed. The BBC either needs to say that presenters have freedom of speech on social media, or that they don’t and need to stay apolitical. They then need to enforce their chosen policy everywhere and all the time, with no exceptions.
Are you really telling me there shouldn't be looser rules for a car show presenter or a sports commentator than a political correspondent?
Should an Antiques Roadshow presenter be prevented from standing for their District Council because it would show their political leanings?
I think I can make a pretty good guess at the political leanings of Fiona ‘one broken nose doesn’t make a wife beater’ Bruce.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
They never did, surely? Nevil Shute's autobiography has some fascinating details on how difficult it was to start up an aircraft manufacturing company in 1930 (well, no surprise!) and in particular he noted the attitude of his banks (note plural) made it much harder.
Banks don’t understand software startups at all. They have a pile of money from investors, that drains out over time, not to capital expenditure but on labour, and there’s often a significant time when there’s no actual product.
Banks understand manufacturing businesses, when someone builds a factory and the bank can see it being physically built. Where the product is a half-finished piece of software, on the other hand…
As someone who has worked in manufacturing for over 30 years, I can assure you bankers dont understand manufacturing either. I sometimes wonder if bankers actually understand banking.
And that's after paying humongous salaries and bonuses to attract the best talent.
God help us if we ever end up with mediocre bankers.
Anyone who feels that insistence on the right to freedom of speech is 'petulant', simply because it's from someone who criticised the government, doesn't have much respect for the concept.
Of course not, which is why I have repeatedly defended in discussion here linekers right to his views and free speech 🙄
However this has gone beyond that now. It is becoming a stand off where the BBC is effectively disproving the old adage that no one is bigger than the corporation.
The DG and the Chairman must go then.
There are two separate issues. One is very straightforward. The Chairman is plainly a political appointee, so the Corporation will always be in an awkward position when questions of impartiality arise.
The other is whether the Corporation can sanction staff and contributors who cross certain lines when commenting publicly. I'm agnostic on that, but such lines must apply equally to all. That seems to be the problem here. One thinks of, say, Clarkson and Neil, and then has to ask 'How different to Lineker?'. The Beeb has to untwist its knickers on that one going forward for sure.
How does it get itself out of the immediate mess? I'm not sure. If the DG has played a part in creating it, he should resign, but probably won't, and really that one is not big potatoes.
They announce a review of their guidelines then say non news staff can sound off on twitter so long as they don't engage in egregious offence. Then the DG discreetly says they'll be standing down soon.
LOL at Gary Lineker and a movie awards show leading the news, rather than financial Armageddon.
My view hasn’t changed. The BBC either needs to say that presenters have freedom of speech on social media, or that they don’t and need to stay apolitical. They then need to enforce their chosen policy everywhere and all the time, with no exceptions.
That is not the problem. Lineker is not taking a political view he's taking a compassionate one. We expect Aunty and it's employees to show compassion. Had Clarkson said the RN should just sink the refugee boats and the BBC took him off air then the argument would be quite different. It would be one of whether we wanted people like that being paid out of the public purse
Anyone who feels that insistence on the right to freedom of speech is 'petulant', simply because it's from someone who criticised the government, doesn't have much respect for the concept.
Of course not, which is why I have repeatedly defended in discussion here linekers right to his views and free speech 🙄
However this has gone beyond that now. It is becoming a stand off where the BBC is effectively disproving the old adage that no one is bigger than the corporation.
The DG and the Chairman must go then.
There are two separate issues. One is very straightforward. The Chairman is plainly a political appointee, so the Corporation will always be in an awkward position when questions of impartiality arise.
The other is whether the Corporation can sanction staff and contributors who cross certain lines when commenting publicly. I'm agnostic on that, but such lines must apply equally to all. That seems to be the problem here. One thinks of, say, Clarkson and Neil, and then has to ask 'How different to Lineker?'. The Beeb has to untwist its knickers on that one going forward for sure.
How does it get itself out of the immediate mess? I'm not sure. If the DG has played a part in creating it, he should resign, but probably won't, and really that one is not big potatoes.
Clarkson’s big show is on Amazon - he’s not associated with the BBC in the same way
Similarly Neil has multiple other jobs and just does the occasional work for them
The difference is - as far as I’m aware - Lineker’s main gig and profile is completely associated with the BBC
(For those people who are critical of Neil having a political view point I think there is a difference between interview/opinion shows and news reporting. Fundamentally if you are watching Neil’s show you are expecting political debate. The issue is that Lineker is (a) associated with the BBC and (b) was talking to a broad group of not very politically involved people - so there is more risk of association
Ehh? Both Neil and Clarkson were (note were) the face of the BBC when they made many of their comments as they were and should have been allowed to do. All 3 had/have interests outside of the BBC and have opinions they are entitled to give outside of their BBC remit
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
They never did, surely? Nevil Shute's autobiography has some fascinating details on how difficult it was to start up an aircraft manufacturing company in 1930 (well, no surprise!) and in particular he noted the attitude of his banks (note plural) made it much harder.
He pretty much admits in the book that he was risking prison for being somewhat optimistic in the company accounts. As he put it, quite a few manufacturers in various industry were saved by the war. While their finances were, essentially nationalised, all their debts and obligations were as well.
That was after they tried to rinse him for a hundred guineas and refused him an overdraft facility. In fact, that was partly why he was pushing the envelope as well.
He was pushing the envelope to save the company - which kept getting a tiny trickle of orders. Controversial view - was Airspeed worth it? Apart from introducing Mitchell to a working retractable undercarriage….
Reasonable question. I would answer 'yes' because of the importance of the Oxford both for itself and in stimulating development on the Mosquito. Not to mention its other numerous technical innovations, although taking in the lessons of the DC1 was probably more important overall (certainly for flaps).
However, the begs the question of might these have been built without Airspeed? Would Tiltman have been hired by Avro, Vickers or de Havilland instead and produced them there? Would they have backed him and given him the same freedom and impetus to innovate as Norway and Grimethorpe did? It's possible, but we can't know.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
They never did, surely? Nevil Shute's autobiography has some fascinating details on how difficult it was to start up an aircraft manufacturing company in 1930 (well, no surprise!) and in particular he noted the attitude of his banks (note plural) made it much harder.
Banks don’t understand software startups at all. They have a pile of money from investors, that drains out over time, not to capital expenditure but on labour, and there’s often a significant time when there’s no actual product.
Banks understand manufacturing businesses, when someone builds a factory and the bank can see it being physically built. Where the product is a half-finished piece of software, on the other hand…
As someone who has worked in manufacturing for over 30 years, I can assure you bankers dont understand manufacturing either. I sometimes wonder if bankers actually understand banking.
I've told this story before, but it is relevant. Back in the very early 80s (or maybe even late 70s), Acorn Computers got a big order, and they needed a million quid - far over what they'd asked for previously. They went to their bank into Central Cambridge, met the manager, who hummed and hawwed and said no.
So they went to another bank, asked to see the manager, and asked for a million quid. He said something like: "You're all good Cambridge boys. I know nothing about computers, but here's the money."
With banks, I fear it's like many other spheres of business: the old school tie / contacts can really matter.
More that the generalist approach means they have no expertise in various industries. Because it’s all accounting and law - according to the accountants and lawyers.
Hence the occasion where I saw an “expert” on space technology give a presentation with advice, that if followed, would have landed his clients in very, very hot water. ITAR, cough, cough,
The Yoons (adopting unfamiliar reasonable tone): Look, your Indy dream is over, we’ve all got to work together for the good of Scotland, it’s going to be Devomax all the way.
5 minutes later: HA HA WE’RE GONNAE FUCK UP YER BOTTLE RETURN SCHEME!!
Very good news about the HSBC SVB UK rescue and the Fed action in the US. It should calm markets somewhat.
It’s standard practice for banks to take patents as collateral in loan deals. They have absolutely no idea how much they might be worth and that the vast majority are worth absolutely nothing. Thankfully, we don’t seem to be at the stage where that gets to be found out.
Wouldn’t the easiest way to deal with the Lineker drama be to clearly put in the guidelines if you’re freelance you can say whatever you like on social media , if you’re contracted to the BBC then you can’t . That way there’s a clear rule .
The last few days is one of those times when you’re very grateful it’s Sunak and Hunt in charge, not Truss and Kwarteng. It’s terrifying to imagine how they would have handled the SVB situation.
The last few days is one of those times when you’re very grateful it’s Sunak and Hunt in charge, not Truss and Kwarteng. It’s terrifying to imagine how they would have handled the SVB situation.
In truth probably no differently since all the politicos do is front the civil servants work
Anyone who feels that insistence on the right to freedom of speech is 'petulant', simply because it's from someone who criticised the government, doesn't have much respect for the concept.
Of course not, which is why I have repeatedly defended in discussion here linekers right to his views and free speech 🙄
However this has gone beyond that now. It is becoming a stand off where the BBC is effectively disproving the old adage that no one is bigger than the corporation.
The DG and the Chairman must go then.
There are two separate issues. One is very straightforward. The Chairman is plainly a political appointee, so the Corporation will always be in an awkward position when questions of impartiality arise.
The other is whether the Corporation can sanction staff and contributors who cross certain lines when commenting publicly. I'm agnostic on that, but such lines must apply equally to all. That seems to be the problem here. One thinks of, say, Clarkson and Neil, and then has to ask 'How different to Lineker?'. The Beeb has to untwist its knickers on that one going forward for sure.
How does it get itself out of the immediate mess? I'm not sure. If the DG has played a part in creating it, he should resign, but probably won't, and really that one is not big potatoes.
Clarkson’s big show is on Amazon - he’s not associated with the BBC in the same way
Similarly Neil has multiple other jobs and just does the occasional work for them
The difference is - as far as I’m aware - Lineker’s main gig and profile is completely associated with the BBC
(For those people who are critical of Neil having a political view point I think there is a difference between interview/opinion shows and news reporting. Fundamentally if you are watching Neil’s show you are expecting political debate. The issue is that Lineker is (a) associated with the BBC and (b) was talking to a broad group of not very politically involved people - so there is more risk of association
Ehh? Both Neil and Clarkson were (note were) the face of the BBC when they made many of their comments as they were and should have been allowed to do. All 3 had/have interests outside of the BBC and have opinions they are entitled to give outside of their BBC remit
In schools, it's called the "what you permit you promote" principle.
News coming though that confirms that the ZSU crossed the Dnipro in some size at Nova Kakhovka in the past 36 hours and that the Russian forces took some significant damage. Remains unclear if Ukrainian forces remain south of the river, but if they were to hold a beach head it would be a crisis for the Russian high command. As the grinding battle of Bakhmut continues, with staggering casualties for the Russians, the prospect of a significant Ukrainian counter offensive is clearly growing.
They need to push Russian artillery out of range of Kherson, or its levelling will mean a Phyrric victory. A bridgehead near Nova Kakhovka might mean that artillery moving eastwards. But then Ukraine can launch a massive thrust over the Dnipro at Kherson.
Russia is going to be wishing it still had those lost tens of thousands at Bakhmut.
Here we go.
See you at the Moskovsky Triumfal'niy Vorota for tea and medals. Bring your No.1 Dress.
Dr. Foxy, bastardising history by revisionism informed by ideologies such as Marxism (a literal suggestion of a 'good thing' I read in a Greek history not so long ago) is not understanding it but marmalising history by twisting it.
The ways of thinking of the past, especially centuries ago, cannot be forced into a straitjacket of modern ideologies. That's rewriting history. It's popular with ignorant buffoons who like pretending Europe wasn't 99% white in the middle ages, or that slavery was only done by white people to black people, but for understanding and preserving an accurate representation of history it's a horrendous way to pour deceit into the past.
Pulling down statues because an individual or group decides that's what they want is nothing but exerting by brute force one's will. It isn't democratically, rationally, or legally justified.
History is constantly being revised and rewritten - that's the essence of the modern study of history. It's why it's never 'done'. No view, no interpretation, is ever set in aspic. And everyone who is writing it, or reading and interpreting it, has their own biases, their own interpretation, viewed through their own ideological lens. Even you.
It's troubling. Basically no bank is solvent if they have to pay out more than half their deposits in 24 hours. The whole borrow short and lend long model that allows banks to invest in start ups etc collapses. If you are lending long it takes time and effort to get your money back (and the knock on consequences for your customers can be severe).
My immediate thoughts are: (1) is there a bigger role for the LOLR? If the Fed or BOE underwrites liquidity then the problem goes away but is the cost of this risk one that taxpayers should bear? (2) Do we need to completely break up retail banks and investment banks? Are investment risks just too great for a retail balance sheet to bear? (3) LOL at Forbes.
Haven’t read the thread yet
But borrow short / lend long is the underlying principle on which fractional banking works
Maybe banks focused on small companies should need a greater equity cushion?
And investment banks and retail banks should be separate. But it wasn’t SVB’s investment bank that was the problem
The last few days is one of those times when you’re very grateful it’s Sunak and Hunt in charge, not Truss and Kwarteng. It’s terrifying to imagine how they would have handled the SVB situation.
In truth probably no differently since all the politicos do is front the civil servants work
The civil servants didn't do a very god job during her brief time in No10, if that were genuinely the case. It's quite conceivable that she'd have taken a libertarian 'let the chips fall where they may' line.
Of course given the ring fenced status of SVB UK, it's also possible that HSBC or another bank would have picked up fresh corpse anyway. But it could have been much messier.
Anyone who feels that insistence on the right to freedom of speech is 'petulant', simply because it's from someone who criticised the government, doesn't have much respect for the concept.
Of course not, which is why I have repeatedly defended in discussion here linekers right to his views and free speech 🙄
However this has gone beyond that now. It is becoming a stand off where the BBC is effectively disproving the old adage that no one is bigger than the corporation.
The DG and the Chairman must go then.
There are two separate issues. One is very straightforward. The Chairman is plainly a political appointee, so the Corporation will always be in an awkward position when questions of impartiality arise.
The other is whether the Corporation can sanction staff and contributors who cross certain lines when commenting publicly. I'm agnostic on that, but such lines must apply equally to all. That seems to be the problem here. One thinks of, say, Clarkson and Neil, and then has to ask 'How different to Lineker?'. The Beeb has to untwist its knickers on that one going forward for sure.
How does it get itself out of the immediate mess? I'm not sure. If the DG has played a part in creating it, he should resign, but probably won't, and really that one is not big potatoes.
Clarkson’s big show is on Amazon - he’s not associated with the BBC in the same way
Similarly Neil has multiple other jobs and just does the occasional work for them
The difference is - as far as I’m aware - Lineker’s main gig and profile is completely associated with the BBC
(For those people who are critical of Neil having a political view point I think there is a difference between interview/opinion shows and news reporting. Fundamentally if you are watching Neil’s show you are expecting political debate. The issue is that Lineker is (a) associated with the BBC and (b) was talking to a broad group of not very politically involved people - so there is more risk of association
Yes, I'm not saying the cases are identical, SW. Each should be taken on its own merits.
All I'm suggesting is that the current rules are unclear and there appears to be a sense that they are not being applied fairly and impartially.
There is also a strong sense that the Chairman is not impartial either, but that's a different matter.
Mr. Monkey, new facts and archaeological findings do emerge, and better techniques for studying the past do come about. and yes, everybody has a certain historical view.
However.
Marxism means fuck all to an ancient Greek. It's not a Hellenistic god or philosophical school. It has nothing to do with the culture of Greece. That's imposing a contemporary (and bloody awful) political perspective. It's no better than condemning the medieval peasant for having poor hygiene because they don't use vacuum cleaners.
The last few days is one of those times when you’re very grateful it’s Sunak and Hunt in charge, not Truss and Kwarteng. It’s terrifying to imagine how they would have handled the SVB situation.
In truth probably no differently since all the politicos do is front the civil servants work
The civil servants didn't do a very god job during her brief time in No10, if that were genuinely the case. It's quite conceivable that she'd have taken a libertarian 'let the chips fall where they may' line.
Of course given the ring fenced status of SVB UK, it's also possible that HSBC or another bank would have picked up fresh corpse anyway. But it could have been much messier.
Nor did she, as she didnt manage the communications. However the basis of her economic position are now looking mainstream - better tax receipts than expected, the need to encourage long term growth and productivity and reducing the admin burden on businesses. It remains to be seen what Sunak and Hunt do about this but I cant see them pushing the boat ou.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
They never did, surely? Nevil Shute's autobiography has some fascinating details on how difficult it was to start up an aircraft manufacturing company in 1930 (well, no surprise!) and in particular he noted the attitude of his banks (note plural) made it much harder.
He pretty much admits in the book that he was risking prison for being somewhat optimistic in the company accounts. As he put it, quite a few manufacturers in various industry were saved by the war. While their finances were, essentially nationalised, all their debts and obligations were as well.
That was after they tried to rinse him for a hundred guineas and refused him an overdraft facility. In fact, that was partly why he was pushing the envelope as well.
He was pushing the envelope to save the company - which kept getting a tiny trickle of orders. Controversial view - was Airspeed worth it? Apart from introducing Mitchell to a working retractable undercarriage….
Reasonable question. I would answer 'yes' because of the importance of the Oxford both for itself and in stimulating development on the Mosquito. Not to mention its other numerous technical innovations, although taking in the lessons of the DC1 was probably more important overall (certainly for flaps).
However, the begs the question of might these have been built without Airspeed? Would Tiltman have been hired by Avro, Vickers or de Havilland instead and produced them there? Would they have backed him and given him the same freedom and impetus to innovate as Norway and Grimethorpe did? It's possible, but we can't know.
It was pretty useful in itself having another aircraft production company to act as a cadre for wartime expansion in yet another area (Portsmouth, IIRC) for production on site and in closely associated dispersed workshops.
News coming though that confirms that the ZSU crossed the Dnipro in some size at Nova Kakhovka in the past 36 hours and that the Russian forces took some significant damage. Remains unclear if Ukrainian forces remain south of the river, but if they were to hold a beach head it would be a crisis for the Russian high command. As the grinding battle of Bakhmut continues, with staggering casualties for the Russians, the prospect of a significant Ukrainian counter offensive is clearly growing.
They need to push Russian artillery out of range of Kherson, or its levelling will mean a Phyrric victory. A bridgehead near Nova Kakhovka might mean that artillery moving eastwards. But then Ukraine can launch a massive thrust over the Dnipro at Kherson.
Russia is going to be wishing it still had those lost tens of thousands at Bakhmut.
Here we go.
See you at the Moskovsky Triumfal'niy Vorota for tea and medals. Bring your No.1 Dress.
Just for you and Topping, some real war reporting...
News coming though that confirms that the ZSU crossed the Dnipro in some size at Nova Kakhovka in the past 36 hours and that the Russian forces took some significant damage. Remains unclear if Ukrainian forces remain south of the river, but if they were to hold a beach head it would be a crisis for the Russian high command. As the grinding battle of Bakhmut continues, with staggering casualties for the Russians, the prospect of a significant Ukrainian counter offensive is clearly growing.
They need to push Russian artillery out of range of Kherson, or its levelling will mean a Phyrric victory. A bridgehead near Nova Kakhovka might mean that artillery moving eastwards. But then Ukraine can launch a massive thrust over the Dnipro at Kherson.
Russia is going to be wishing it still had those lost tens of thousands at Bakhmut.
Here we go.
Indeed, here we go - you complaining endlessly about other people's speculative posts, whilst admitting you're clueless yourself.
Mr. Monkey, new facts and archaeological findings do emerge, and better techniques for studying the past do come about. and yes, everybody has a certain historical view.
However.
Marxism means fuck all to an ancient Greek. It's not a Hellenistic god or philosophical school. It has nothing to do with the culture of Greece. That's imposing a contemporary (and bloody awful) political perspective. It's no better than condemning the medieval peasant for having poor hygiene because they don't use vacuum cleaners.
OTOH they would have loved talking about it to bits.
The Yoons (adopting unfamiliar reasonable tone): Look, your Indy dream is over, we’ve all got to work together for the good of Scotland, it’s going to be Devomax all the way.
5 minutes later: HA HA WE’RE GONNAE FUCK UP YER BOTTLE RETURN SCHEME!!
'Kat Jones, the director of the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, said: “We know that there has been a lot of work behind the scenes between UK government and the Scottish government officials to establish how the Scottish systems can operate most effectively in a UK context, and so this intervention from the secretary of state feels like an attempt to disrupt deposit return.”'
LOL at Gary Lineker and a movie awards show leading the news, rather than financial Armageddon.
My view hasn’t changed. The BBC either needs to say that presenters have freedom of speech on social media, or that they don’t and need to stay apolitical. They then need to enforce their chosen policy everywhere and all the time, with no exceptions.
Are you really telling me there shouldn't be looser rules for a car show presenter or a sports commentator than a political correspondent?
Should an Antiques Roadshow presenter be prevented from standing for their District Council because it would show their political leanings?
AIUI, the status quo is that news and current affairs people are supposed to be politically balanced on social media, whereas other people seem to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, which leads to the likes of Lineker pushing the line.
Standing for election is an interesting one. It’s okay if they are independent, but a difficult call if they have a party affiliation while still working there. There’s a few TV presenters in Parliament, Gloria De Piero and Esther McVey immediately spring to mind, but I think they resigned before they stood for election.
Personally, I’d let them say what they like on their own personal social media channels, but that the BBC should promote only official programme accounts. They would also need to keep issuing statements that what people say in their spare time is not our responsibility, even when some random sports presenter goes Godwin on the government of the day. Even worse, they’d have to play down the story as a nothing burger, and not have it lead the news!
This is exactly how the BBC should handle it going forward. Reserve the rules for those dealing directly with politics/news and have clear disclaimers/distancing statements in place for everyone else.
The last few days is one of those times when you’re very grateful it’s Sunak and Hunt in charge, not Truss and Kwarteng. It’s terrifying to imagine how they would have handled the SVB situation.
In truth probably no differently since all the politicos do is front the civil servants work
Wasn't Kwarteng's first move on becoming to the CoE to get rid of the Treasury secretary. They had identified the civil service as the enemy and wanted to bring in new people. Thankfully, as far as the SVB situation is concerned, they did not have enough time to do much damage.
Mr. Monkey, new facts and archaeological findings do emerge, and better techniques for studying the past do come about. and yes, everybody has a certain historical view.
However.
Marxism means fuck all to an ancient Greek. It's not a Hellenistic god or philosophical school. It has nothing to do with the culture of Greece. That's imposing a contemporary (and bloody awful) political perspective. It's no better than condemning the medieval peasant for having poor hygiene because they don't use vacuum cleaners.
All history is interpretation of sources. The further away the time period, the more piecemeal the sources become. The current, Marxist-inspired, fashion for the history of the masses, trying to understand those who generally left no sources, how they helped shape their societies, is an interesting one. You disagree, that's fine, that's your prerogative. I disagree with your view. I merely wanted to point out your view is valid but isn't the be all and end all. It is fashioned by your biases, as is mine.
Mr. Monkey, new facts and archaeological findings do emerge, and better techniques for studying the past do come about. and yes, everybody has a certain historical view.
However.
Marxism means fuck all to an ancient Greek. It's not a Hellenistic god or philosophical school. It has nothing to do with the culture of Greece. That's imposing a contemporary (and bloody awful) political perspective. It's no better than condemning the medieval peasant for having poor hygiene because they don't use vacuum cleaners.
Would you consider the British Empire polishing oeuvre of the likes of Nigel Biggar as present day UK boosting revisionism?
The last few days is one of those times when you’re very grateful it’s Sunak and Hunt in charge, not Truss and Kwarteng. It’s terrifying to imagine how they would have handled the SVB situation.
In truth probably no differently since all the politicos do is front the civil servants work
The civil servants didn't do a very god job during her brief time in No10, if that were genuinely the case. It's quite conceivable that she'd have taken a libertarian 'let the chips fall where they may' line.
Of course given the ring fenced status of SVB UK, it's also possible that HSBC or another bank would have picked up fresh corpse anyway. But it could have been much messier.
Nor did she, as she didnt manage the communications. However the basis of her economic position are now looking mainstream - better tax receipts than expected, the need to encourage long term growth and productivity and reducing the admin burden on businesses. It remains to be seen what Sunak and Hunt do about this but I cant see them pushing the boat ou.
The issue with Truss/Kwarteng was not that they wanted to focus on growth, it was on how they intended to do it.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
They never did, surely? Nevil Shute's autobiography has some fascinating details on how difficult it was to start up an aircraft manufacturing company in 1930 (well, no surprise!) and in particular he noted the attitude of his banks (note plural) made it much harder.
He pretty much admits in the book that he was risking prison for being somewhat optimistic in the company accounts. As he put it, quite a few manufacturers in various industry were saved by the war. While their finances were, essentially nationalised, all their debts and obligations were as well.
That was after they tried to rinse him for a hundred guineas and refused him an overdraft facility. In fact, that was partly why he was pushing the envelope as well.
He was pushing the envelope to save the company - which kept getting a tiny trickle of orders. Controversial view - was Airspeed worth it? Apart from introducing Mitchell to a working retractable undercarriage….
Reasonable question. I would answer 'yes' because of the importance of the Oxford both for itself and in stimulating development on the Mosquito. Not to mention its other numerous technical innovations, although taking in the lessons of the DC1 was probably more important overall (certainly for flaps).
However, the begs the question of might these have been built without Airspeed? Would Tiltman have been hired by Avro, Vickers or de Havilland instead and produced them there? Would they have backed him and given him the same freedom and impetus to innovate as Norway and Grimethorpe did? It's possible, but we can't know.
The Oxford would have been replaced by one of the competitors. De Havilland's did a fine job of pushing the Mosquito along, all by themselves.
As someone who gets irritated by the playground drivel of "Liberal Democrats are neither liberal nor democratic" said as though it is the wisdom of the ages and not just trite drivel, I reluctantly find myself asking what the "Conservatives" are actually trying to conserve?
Is there a single national institution that they have not in someway damaged, tarnished or undermined over the course of the past decade?
The list is long: the BBC, Universities, the Union they profess to be dedicated to, infrastructure spending, 1000 years of English County local government, the constitutional prerogatives of the Monarchy, the NHS, even the power of the City of London and all of the soft power of the UK brand, all that is just the start for the Tory wrecking crew.
The Bullshitters in a China shop have mangled so much, and it is not just English rivers that are full of shit. The political/media complex that has given us such "giants" as Johnson, Gove, "Leon", Peter Hitchens, or Farage is a cynical servant of a cynical and corrupt media world view exemplified by Trump and Murdoch.
So we end up with the spectacle of a Conservative government- a Conservative government- cancelling David Attenborough and then watching the public purse being robbed of tens of millions by corrupt chancers and then packing the House of Lords with said chancers and KGB vatniks. A government that breaks even its own rules on every possible occasion.
The damage these "#¤%s have caused will need a long time, and a radical agenda to fix. I don´t know if SKS has it, but I do know that the Tories must be driven out, bag and baggage.
You should not get irritated by something that, whilst clearly a cliché, is factually correct.
News coming though that confirms that the ZSU crossed the Dnipro in some size at Nova Kakhovka in the past 36 hours and that the Russian forces took some significant damage. Remains unclear if Ukrainian forces remain south of the river, but if they were to hold a beach head it would be a crisis for the Russian high command. As the grinding battle of Bakhmut continues, with staggering casualties for the Russians, the prospect of a significant Ukrainian counter offensive is clearly growing.
They need to push Russian artillery out of range of Kherson, or its levelling will mean a Phyrric victory. A bridgehead near Nova Kakhovka might mean that artillery moving eastwards. But then Ukraine can launch a massive thrust over the Dnipro at Kherson.
Russia is going to be wishing it still had those lost tens of thousands at Bakhmut.
Here we go.
See you at the Moskovsky Triumfal'niy Vorota for tea and medals. Bring your No.1 Dress.
Just for you and Topping, some real war reporting...
He's not really "brave" is he. He's got no fucking choice.
I have noticed that the tenor of the Ukrainian agit-prop on socials has changed a bit over the last few months. The route of transmission is the same, it originates on Telegram and then is amplified by propogation to Facebook, Reddit and Twitter but the content is now different. It used to be all seriously wounded Russians bleeding out in muddy holes as they get peppered with drone dropped grenades. Now it's photogenic young law students with floppy hair who got a gut full of shrapnel while defending a strategically vital bus stop in Bakhmut and puppies made homeless by Kinzhal strikes. Definitely trying to work the pity angle more lately.
HSBC is a truly awful match for SVB UK, but I guess the government doesn't want to fuck about and would rather the clients slowly drain away to BoL rather than test market resilience by having an upstart bank take on 300 high growth companies and quadruple the size of its book.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
In what way? (Preferably in the Janet and John version.) Just that big banks don't get the excitement of working with tech startups?
They never did, surely? Nevil Shute's autobiography has some fascinating details on how difficult it was to start up an aircraft manufacturing company in 1930 (well, no surprise!) and in particular he noted the attitude of his banks (note plural) made it much harder.
He pretty much admits in the book that he was risking prison for being somewhat optimistic in the company accounts. As he put it, quite a few manufacturers in various industry were saved by the war. While their finances were, essentially nationalised, all their debts and obligations were as well.
That was after they tried to rinse him for a hundred guineas and refused him an overdraft facility. In fact, that was partly why he was pushing the envelope as well.
He was pushing the envelope to save the company - which kept getting a tiny trickle of orders. Controversial view - was Airspeed worth it? Apart from introducing Mitchell to a working retractable undercarriage….
Reasonable question. I would answer 'yes' because of the importance of the Oxford both for itself and in stimulating development on the Mosquito. Not to mention its other numerous technical innovations, although taking in the lessons of the DC1 was probably more important overall (certainly for flaps).
However, the begs the question of might these have been built without Airspeed? Would Tiltman have been hired by Avro, Vickers or de Havilland instead and produced them there? Would they have backed him and given him the same freedom and impetus to innovate as Norway and Grimethorpe did? It's possible, but we can't know.
The Oxford would have been replaced by one of the competitors. De Havilland's did a fine job of pushing the Mosquito along, all by themselves.
For the rest - impossible to know.
I think it was AJP Taylor who said the problem in history is we can't just remove an event and rerun time to see what the effect would be (although Star Trek and Dr Who have had several goes).
Mr. Carnyx, given the Athenians executed almost their entire military leadership after they won a battle, they might've loved cancel culture.
I was admittedly suggesting something somewhat different - that they'd have loved *talking* about Marxism - and indeed Adam Smith capitalism and so on. Spent hours in the Painted Stoa and in the Grove of Academe turning them over and over again.
The BBC have strict guidelines in place for its news and current affairs employees - fair enough, state broadcaster should be seen to give us news and politics straight, without bias so we can make our own minds up.
Do you seriously think those same guidelines can apply to every singer, dancer, director, writer, janitor, tea lady? To apply those guidelines to Lineker you have to apply it to all of them too, which is not remotely doable. So why did they attempt do it?
You think tea lady has Twitter following because she works at BBC, you think Lineker only has Twitter following because works at BBC?
Comments
Trying to tighten up enforcement of a rule that is there on paper but everyone has ignored for years is very hard to do well.
Better to start with a blank page and a new set of rules, to be honest.
£6.7bn of deposits and balance sheet of £8.8bn
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1635181127349731331?s=20
well yes, but if you stray in to politics what do you expect ? He works alongside smearmeister Alistair Campbell so this can hardly be a surprise.
Or do you think there should still be a statue of King George in New York City?
https://galleries.lafayette.edu/2019/01/02/william-walcutt-pulling-down-the-statue-of-george-iii-at-bowling-green-n-y-july-9-1776/#:~:text=On the evening of July,then sent to Connecticut, where
Not to mention one of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad!
I hope it's not been too quick. Although I imagine after the - unfortunate - events of 2008 the government might be more willing to offer loans and guarantees.
All those last crying about a "bail out" yesterday can rest easy as there's no bail out. UK regulations worked as expected.
Bit like the time a back bencher was promoted to attack a Chief of The Defence staff over expenses. Which was hilarious, since the chap in question was being extraordinary frugal. He’d taken the heads of European armies to a pizza and pasta place where the wine is a tenner a bottle.
In no particular order
1) nothing Lineker did was worthy of much note
2) the reaction by the BBC was ludicrous.
3) football is full of money, to an insane degree. The commentators being expensive is just a part of that
4) in the long run, contracting gigs are going to be going away. Their usage as a way to reduce tax is a farce. Their original purpose has been abused massively.
Merge NI with Income tax and everyone pays the same on all income.
Yes, they were built to contain the Welsh and were seen as symbols of oppression. However, since almost all of them were captured by Welsh forces at one time or another (Beaumaris is the one exception) and Harlech was actually Glyndwr's capital from 1405 to 1409, they could also be seen as symbols of liberation.
Plus, they are the finest examples of medieval military architecture not just in Britain but in the whole of Europe.
The ways of thinking of the past, especially centuries ago, cannot be forced into a straitjacket of modern ideologies. That's rewriting history. It's popular with ignorant buffoons who like pretending Europe wasn't 99% white in the middle ages, or that slavery was only done by white people to black people, but for understanding and preserving an accurate representation of history it's a horrendous way to pour deceit into the past.
Pulling down statues because an individual or group decides that's what they want is nothing but exerting by brute force one's will. It isn't democratically, rationally, or legally justified.
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1635186656679526402?s=20
Just checked - the Castles and town wales of Edward I in Wales are UNESCO sites.
Destroying a UNESCO site puts you in the Taliban box, internationally. Really not the thing.
But at least they have a balance sheet so the pressure is off.
Well, it gives you legitimate reason to say 'my bankers are whores.'
Banks understand manufacturing businesses, when someone builds a factory and the bank can see it being physically built. Where the product is a half-finished piece of software, on the other hand…
+ Humza Yousaf claims any SNP leader who scraps the Green coalition may fail to secure enough support to become FM.
https://twitter.com/Mike_Blackley/status/1635189637370228736?s=20
Video: https://twitter.com/markthehibby/status/1634918472428793856?s=20
Strangely, FirstDirect, which I think is a subsidiary, seems to be ok.
Drakeford of course again doesn't get that. He's spent all his life in South Wales which has a different outlook and ethos.
The English talk about a north/south divide but I think it's actually more stark in Wales. At least the north of England has major cities like Newcastle, York, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield. In North Wales the only town of any size at all is Wrexham. It has one dual carriageway and three railway lines, two of them single track and lightly engineered. There is I think only one major factory left since Anglesey Aluminium closed.
You have tourism, you have farming, you have local government and a couple of universities, one of which is very small. That's pretty much it.
@Foxy - you can rest easy. The depositors have been protected, the clients have been protected and the wicked bankers have been punished
As did my ability to remortgage for five years at 1.68% in February 2022.
(It was even funnier given he's a Leicester supporter.)
So they went to another bank, asked to see the manager, and asked for a million quid. He said something like: "You're all good Cambridge boys. I know nothing about computers, but here's the money."
With banks, I fear it's like many other spheres of business: the old school tie / contacts can really matter.
Similarly Neil has multiple other jobs and just does the occasional work for them
The difference is - as far as I’m aware - Lineker’s main gig and profile is completely associated with the BBC
(For those people who are critical of Neil having a political view point I think there is a difference between interview/opinion shows and news reporting. Fundamentally if you are watching Neil’s show you are expecting political debate. The issue is that Lineker is (a) associated with the BBC and (b) was talking to a broad group of not very politically involved people - so there is more risk of association
God help us if we ever end up with mediocre bankers.
However, the begs the question of might these have been built without Airspeed? Would Tiltman have been hired by Avro, Vickers or de Havilland instead and produced them there? Would they have backed him and given him the same freedom and impetus to innovate as Norway and Grimethorpe did? It's possible, but we can't know.
Hence the occasion where I saw an “expert” on space technology give a presentation with advice, that if followed, would have landed his clients in very, very hot water. ITAR, cough, cough,
5 minutes later: HA HA WE’RE GONNAE FUCK UP YER BOTTLE RETURN SCHEME!!
It’s standard practice for banks to take patents as collateral in loan deals. They have absolutely no idea how much they might be worth and that the vast majority are worth absolutely nothing. Thankfully, we don’t seem to be at the stage where that gets to be found out.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/13/uks-relationship-us-has-deteriorated-since-pm-says-tony-blair/
See you at the Moskovsky Triumfal'niy Vorota for tea and medals. Bring your No.1 Dress.
But borrow short / lend long is the underlying principle on which fractional banking works
Maybe banks focused on small companies should need a greater equity cushion?
And investment banks and retail banks should be separate. But it wasn’t SVB’s investment bank that was the problem
It's quite conceivable that she'd have taken a libertarian 'let the chips fall where they may' line.
Of course given the ring fenced status of SVB UK, it's also possible that HSBC or another bank would have picked up fresh corpse anyway.
But it could have been much messier.
All I'm suggesting is that the current rules are unclear and there appears to be a sense that they are not being applied fairly and impartially.
There is also a strong sense that the Chairman is not impartial either, but that's a different matter.
However.
Marxism means fuck all to an ancient Greek. It's not a Hellenistic god or philosophical school. It has nothing to do with the culture of Greece. That's imposing a contemporary (and bloody awful) political perspective. It's no better than condemning the medieval peasant for having poor hygiene because they don't use vacuum cleaners.
A brave hamster lives together with Ukrainian soldiers on the frontlines
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1635199439307681793
And just in time to reinforce an impending new front in the BBC War.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/13/uk-government-poised-to-block-scottish-bottle-recycling-scheme
For the rest - impossible to know.
I have noticed that the tenor of the Ukrainian agit-prop on socials has changed a bit over the last few months. The route of transmission is the same, it originates on Telegram and then is amplified by propogation to Facebook, Reddit and Twitter but the content is now different. It used to be all seriously wounded Russians bleeding out in muddy holes as they get peppered with drone dropped grenades. Now it's photogenic young law students with floppy hair who got a gut full of shrapnel while defending a strategically vital bus stop in Bakhmut and puppies made homeless by Kinzhal strikes. Definitely trying to work the pity angle more lately.
Do you seriously think those same guidelines can apply to every singer, dancer, director, writer, janitor, tea lady? To apply those guidelines to Lineker you have to apply it to all of them too, which is not remotely doable. So why did they attempt do it?
You think tea lady has Twitter following because she works at BBC, you think Lineker only has Twitter following because works at BBC?