The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
Its not fit for purpose though is it? There is ambiguity about who can say what.
There is no ambiguity.
Lineker was allowed to say it.
Then the BBC decided the Government wouldn't like it and tried to rewrite the rules retrospectively.
Was it the government, or was it the culture warriors who were in the government up to Summer 2022, but have now returned to the backbenches? I'm thinking people like Nadine Dorries. (I'm also thinking my ongoing theory that a fair chunk of the current British culture war is aging boomers raging against the dying of their potnency. There is another strand that really wishes it had been born American, but that's much smaller.)
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Its utterly bonkers. Insisting they didn't buy a 6th episode. Despite having it on iPlayer.
So you have what may well be the final ever show from Sir National Treasure. Part of series you are ramping like crazy. But you insist he only made 5 shows. Despite putting the final one on your streaming platform. Because you didn't make it.
Erm...
This Was The Week That Was the week where the right owned Cancel Culture.
Even if the BBC are telling the truth on the Attenborough documentary the stench of cowering against the Tories and the right wing press remains .
Why would you put on 5 episodes and then stick effectively the most important onto iPlayer . So the motive behind the series being only 5 on the main channel remains .
Because people are tuning in to Attenborough to watch fluffy animals and cheesy musack and not pure doom and gloom (necessary or otherwise).
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
Its not fit for purpose though is it? There is ambiguity about who can say what.
There is no ambiguity.
Lineker was allowed to say it.
Then the BBC decided the Government wouldn't like it and tried to rewrite the rules retrospectively.
I disagree. I think the BBC management, as well as Daily Mail and government, genuinely believed the same impartiality rules for News and Current Affairs could and did technically apply to absolutely everyone else as well - despite how impossible that is and utterly embarrassing thinking that could actually work in practice.
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
Its not fit for purpose though is it? There is ambiguity about who can say what.
There is no ambiguity.
Lineker was allowed to say it.
Then the BBC decided the Government wouldn't like it and tried to rewrite the rules retrospectively.
Was it the government, or was it the culture warriors who were in the government up to Summer 2022, but have now returned to the backbenches? I'm thinking people like Nadine Dorries. (I'm also thinking my ongoing theory that a fair chunk of the current British culture war is aging boomers raging against the dying of their potnency. There is another strand that really wishes it had been born American, but that's much smaller.)
The BBC were scared that the government wouldn't like it, not having noticed that Dorries et al were no longer the government?
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
But that is the problem isn't it. Those who are happy to pay and see value in the institution (which on balance includes me) expecting those who do not see value and who prefer other channels, to be forced to pay as well. The normal, reasonable response should be to say that those who want to pay, can, through a subscription just like Sky or Netflix. Your position is akin to telling people they should be forced, by law, to pay for an Amazon Prime subscription even when they have no desire to use that service.
There is, I agree, a public service element to this but this could be be paid for either from General Taxation or by a small levy on all the other channels.
I would probably pay the subscription. I do not expect others to pay for my entertainment.
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
Surely if you find it great value you should be equally happy to pay a BBC subscription? I certainly would.
The problem is the BBC cannot fund everything it’s supposed to do with what’s likely going to be reduced funding .
Regional news and local radio amongst other areas.
Then they probably need leadership appointed by someone other than this or recent Conservative governments, who are evidently happy with managed decline.
They probably do, but by and large all we hear politically from Labour is about protecting the licence fee, they show no more recognition of the trouble the BBC is in than the BBC itself. I'd expect Labour to try and hobble the streaming companies before it considered restructuring the BBC and rethinking public service broadcasting.
Good luck trying to put the Internet back in its box.
I agree, but politicians are more than capable of persuading themselves that they can do the impossible.
It is funny to watch them try though, I’ll give you that!
Today’s kids (18-30s) watch almost no live TV apart from sport, and that isn’t going to get any better in the future. I’m 45 and fall into that category. My parents watch TV, but they’re in their seventies.
Yes, but those in their Seventies do watch TV, and are the Tory core vote. Tearing up another venerable British institution may not go down well with their own voters, and is unlikely to gain anything from young voters.
OTOH they don't p[ay licence fees (or a lot of them don't). Won't go down well if they have to pay subs.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I think there is more than one way to do rewilding, and the hoops to jump through to get grants to do it might not be the best way.
Then they probably need leadership appointed by someone other than this or recent Conservative governments, who are evidently happy with managed decline.
They probably do, but by and large all we hear politically from Labour is about protecting the licence fee, they show no more recognition of the trouble the BBC is in than the BBC itself. I'd expect Labour to try and hobble the streaming companies before it considered restructuring the BBC and rethinking public service broadcasting.
Good luck trying to put the Internet back in its box.
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia”
Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt. Some politicians are so far into denial on some issues (such as encryption) that they are living on houseboats on Lake Victoria.
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
But that is the problem isn't it. Those who are happy to pay and see value in the institution (which on balance includes me) expecting those who do not see value and who prefer other channels, to be forced to pay as well. The normal, reasonable response should be to say that those who want to pay, can, through a subscription just like Sky or Netflix. Your position is akin to telling people they should be forced, by law, to pay for an Amazon Prime subscription even when they have no desire to use that service.
There is, I agree, a public service element to this but this could be be paid for either from General Taxation or by a small levy on all the other channels.
I would probably pay the subscription. I do not expect others to pay for my entertainment.
Is there really a public service element to the BBC any longer?
So, did the government influence the BBC, or were the BBC just scared? Bad either way, of course, but the distinction matters too.
Define influence and scared.
'Be a shame if anything happened to this luvverly little public broadcasting outfit you've got 'ere'
My suspicion (though I have nothing to back this up) is that this all arose as a result of a particular insecurity that the BBC has.
I think it is well aware that it is seen by many on the right as having a left-wing bias (rightly or wrongly). The “champagne corks popping” quote from 1997 has passed into its psyche. It is also well aware that its staff is disproportionately drawn from middle class metropolitan liberal circles.
It is very conscious of the ongoing culture war and I think very painfully self-aware that it is seen as “woke.”
All this was bubbling in the background so that if a situation like what happened with Lineker arose it would react somewhat disproportionately in order to try and demonstrate how even handed it could be (despite the fact the reaction would actually look extreme and, umm, not particularly even handed).
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
Its not fit for purpose though is it? There is ambiguity about who can say what.
There is no ambiguity.
Lineker was allowed to say it.
Then the BBC decided the Government wouldn't like it and tried to rewrite the rules retrospectively.
I disagree. I think the BBC management, as well as Daily Mail and government, genuinely believed the same impartiality rules for News and Current Affairs could and did technically apply to absolutely everyone else as well - despite how impossible that is and utterly embarrassing thinking that could actually work in practice.
When the BBC announced his new contract, back in September 2020, they specifically mentioned social media use.
“ Gary Lineker has taken a £400,000 pay cut to remain as host of Match of the Day for the next five years, along with an agreement to be more careful in his use of Twitter to push political causes.
Tim Davie, the new BBC director general, announced the deal at the launch of the corporation’s annual report, emphasising that all BBC staff would be bound by strict new social media guidelines within weeks.
Lineker, who earlier this year suggested it was time to make the BBC licence fee voluntary, took home £1.75m in the last financial year, well ahead of any other employee. He has attracted the ire of rightwing media outlets for tweeting criticism of the government and Brexit.
“Gary knows that he has responsibilities to the BBC in terms of his use of social media,” said Davie, referring to the new social media rules for employees.”
Having gone out of their way to say that, they’ve found themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place, of being seen to act when he again gets over-excited on social media.
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
Surely if you find it great value you should be equally happy to pay a BBC subscription? I certainly would.
The problem is the BBC cannot fund everything it’s supposed to do with what’s likely going to be reduced funding .
Regional news and local radio amongst other areas.
If a subscription model causes reduced funding then you're admitting that at the moment people are being charged for content they don't want.
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
But that is the problem isn't it. Those who are happy to pay and see value in the institution (which on balance includes me) expecting those who do not see value and who prefer other channels, to be forced to pay as well. The normal, reasonable response should be to say that those who want to pay, can, through a subscription just like Sky or Netflix. Your position is akin to telling people they should be forced, by law, to pay for an Amazon Prime subscription even when they have no desire to use that service.
There is, I agree, a public service element to this but this could be be paid for either from General Taxation or by a small levy on all the other channels.
I would probably pay the subscription. I do not expect others to pay for my entertainment.
Okay then a halfway house without a subscription. So adverts on the main stations and a reasonably small levy or tax to ensure the public service element .
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
Its not fit for purpose though is it? There is ambiguity about who can say what.
There is no ambiguity.
Lineker was allowed to say it.
Then the BBC decided the Government wouldn't like it and tried to rewrite the rules retrospectively.
Agreed
Latest tweet from Lineker this morning will leave usual subjects fuming but impotent
Gary Lineker 58 mins ago "A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
Its not fit for purpose though is it? There is ambiguity about who can say what.
There is no ambiguity.
Lineker was allowed to say it.
Then the BBC decided the Government wouldn't like it and tried to rewrite the rules retrospectively.
Was it the government, or was it the culture warriors who were in the government up to Summer 2022, but have now returned to the backbenches? I'm thinking people like Nadine Dorries. (I'm also thinking my ongoing theory that a fair chunk of the current British culture war is aging boomers raging against the dying of their potnency. There is another strand that really wishes it had been born American, but that's much smaller.)
The BBC were scared that the government wouldn't like it, not having noticed that Dorries et al were no longer the government?
One of the key failings of BBC management through this has been how stupid they have been. Damn silly thing done in a damn silly way. Stupidly afraid of the Daily Mail and some gobby backbenchers.
For a while, the Mail and the Government were completely symbiotic. That's broken down a bit now- both right-of-centre, sure, but noticeably different shades of blue.
That takes a bit of getting used to, and means that just because the Mail is going off on one, it's not necessarily doing so as a government conduit.
Or even with the interests of the Conservative government at heart.
Quite an interesting article from David Gauke over on Conservative Home. He points out that John Arlott, the voice of BBC cricket for over 30 years, was well known for his liberal views, appeared on political shows (Any Questions), and was a vociferous opponent of apartheid and of England touring South Africa during the 1960s and 1970s, when such views were pretty controversial. Nobody raised much of an eyebrow at the time.
I disagree. I think the BBC management, as well as Daily Mail and government, genuinely believed the same impartiality rules for News and Current Affairs could and did technically apply to absolutely everyone else as well - despite how impossible that is and utterly embarrassing thinking that could actually work in practice.
On Thursday the BBC said everything was fine.
On Friday they shit themselves.
The guidelines didn't change. Only their reaction did.
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
Its not fit for purpose though is it? There is ambiguity about who can say what.
Ambiguity is OK. The BBC should just have said "The rules about what a sports presenter is allowed to say in their spare time are intentionally ambiguous. But being seen to be unafraid of the government of the day is non-negotiable so we won't be taking action against Lineker. However, people who work for the BBC who risk the BBC's reputation will have that taken into account when contracts are up for renewal, at the very latest."
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.
As it happens I never said the two were connected I said effectively that Lineker was fighting on two fronts but KJH is just trying to smear me. Perhaps he could read what I wrote....
Even if the BBC are telling the truth on the Attenborough documentary the stench of cowering against the Tories and the right wing press remains .
Why would you put on 5 episodes and then stick effectively the most important onto iPlayer . So the motive behind the series being only 5 on the main channel remains .
It was made by Silverback Films - like the other 5. And co-produced by WWF and RSPB - like the other 5. Yet they are now claiming that this episode was nothing to do with the BBC. Despite buying it anyway.
So lets take a step back and consider the BBC argument. Silverback Films go to the BBC to get the commission to make this huge new Sir National Treasure series. Sets out the planned episodes - intro, 4 habitats, conclusion. "Oh no no no" says the commissioning editor "we don't want episode 6, there isn't enough of a market for Sir National Treasure to afford 6 films, we'll only buy the first 5". And then buy the 6th as well.
Even if the BBC are telling the truth on the Attenborough documentary the stench of cowering against the Tories and the right wing press remains .
Why would you put on 5 episodes and then stick effectively the most important onto iPlayer . So the motive behind the series being only 5 on the main channel remains .
Why is it "effectively the most important" when it appears to be an advertorial?
An advertorial for who - the co-producers of the entire series?
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
New New Labour finally show a bit of principled backbone.
Only joking!
Blue Tories, Red Tories, same shite.
Yes. By playing soooooo safety first ahead of the general election, not allowing the Tories a slither of clear water to exploit, Labour are now losing more voters than if they allowed some clear water.
And that way madness lies
How exactly do you conclude they are “losing voters”?
Easy. You are hell bent on voting Labour next time regardless, but do you actually agree with what Ashworth is saying? Really?
Do you agree with Blunkett, Labour should embrace Bravermans policy, not vote against it?
Now imagine yourself in two minds about voting Labour to start with, because they are too close to Tory policy positions.
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
But that is the problem isn't it. Those who are happy to pay and see value in the institution (which on balance includes me) expecting those who do not see value and who prefer other channels, to be forced to pay as well. The normal, reasonable response should be to say that those who want to pay, can, through a subscription just like Sky or Netflix. Your position is akin to telling people they should be forced, by law, to pay for an Amazon Prime subscription even when they have no desire to use that service.
There is, I agree, a public service element to this but this could be be paid for either from General Taxation or by a small levy on all the other channels.
I would probably pay the subscription. I do not expect others to pay for my entertainment.
Okay then a halfway house without a subscription. So adverts on the main stations and a reasonably small levy or tax to ensure the public service element .
Yep. That would work as well. Though I was under the impression there was a massive objection to advertising. If it is acceptable then that seems an even better way to go. In this day and age, muting the adverts seems to be the norm in most households anyway.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
It might be if your land was covered and [edit] choked with rhododendrons. But that is pretty extreme!
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
Interesting. The one that my cousin is doing seems to be informed by the bible, by Isabella Tree, but I am only going off what I was told and I remember being very surprised (perhaps not surprised at all, that said) at how "unwild" and indeed very closely curated the rewilding process seems to be.
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
Its not fit for purpose though is it? There is ambiguity about who can say what.
There is no ambiguity.
Lineker was allowed to say it.
Then the BBC decided the Government wouldn't like it and tried to rewrite the rules retrospectively.
Really?
It's clear that Lineker, on his latest contract renewal, is required to follow the guidelines and rules.
Such social media guidelines include things like "Always behave professionally, treating others with respect and courtesy at all times" and "Do not bring the BBC into disrepute".
The guy was throwing Hitler comparisons around to 7m people, FFS, without even a smidge of logic to his opinions.
For a while, the Mail and the Government were completely symbiotic. That's broken down a bit now- both right-of-centre, sure, but noticeably different shades of blue.
For a while they were both pursuing Brexit at any cost.
Now the Government is a bit more concerned with fixing the problems caused by Brexit, the Mail is less onside...
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
But that is the problem isn't it. Those who are happy to pay and see value in the institution (which on balance includes me) expecting those who do not see value and who prefer other channels, to be forced to pay as well. The normal, reasonable response should be to say that those who want to pay, can, through a subscription just like Sky or Netflix. Your position is akin to telling people they should be forced, by law, to pay for an Amazon Prime subscription even when they have no desire to use that service.
There is, I agree, a public service element to this but this could be be paid for either from General Taxation or by a small levy on all the other channels.
I would probably pay the subscription. I do not expect others to pay for my entertainment.
Okay then a halfway house without a subscription. So adverts on the main stations and a reasonably small levy or tax to ensure the public service element .
Hm. I think I could meet you there. We then get into quibbling about what the public service bits are! I would argue that it includes pretty much all of BBC Radio (if only in some circumstances because it is far from straightforward to have pay-per-listen as compared to pay per view). Hard to say what on tv qualifies as public service. I don't see any of the channels as fulfilling that brief (BBC parliament, perhaps), though there are certainly many individual programmes you could make a case for (not that I can think of any off the top of my head - children's programmes: well, the commercial channels do those just as well; documentaries, ditto. BBC news is no better than ITN. Certain special events - the queen's funeral perhaps - I can see you'd want broadcast without adverts. Sports - well, the BBC seem to be gradually giving up here, and their coverage is no better than that of their commercial rivals, and I can see no reason to keep advertising out of sports coverage. Any other suggestions?)
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
It might be if your land was covered with rhododendrons. But that is pretty extreme!
Indeed. Most of the projects I have been involved with have been either lowland chalk/limestone or river valley reshaping - undoing the canalisation of former centuries. The most common way of rewilding as part of the widespread Wild East project is just leaving the hell alone and letting nature take its course.
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
But that is the problem isn't it. Those who are happy to pay and see value in the institution (which on balance includes me) expecting those who do not see value and who prefer other channels, to be forced to pay as well. The normal, reasonable response should be to say that those who want to pay, can, through a subscription just like Sky or Netflix. Your position is akin to telling people they should be forced, by law, to pay for an Amazon Prime subscription even when they have no desire to use that service.
There is, I agree, a public service element to this but this could be be paid for either from General Taxation or by a small levy on all the other channels.
I would probably pay the subscription. I do not expect others to pay for my entertainment.
Okay then a halfway house without a subscription. So adverts on the main stations and a reasonably small levy or tax to ensure the public service element .
Why not split it into two wings?
Core National Service BBC (funded through general taxation or much reduced licence fee) - local and national news, world service, national events.
Commercial BBC - everything else, funded through subscription or advertising.
I would also suggest setting Commercial BBC up in a framework that allows it to monetise the BBC archives. I think most of us would pay a subscription to have a treasure trove of historic BBC content accessible on demand.
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
Surely if you find it great value you should be equally happy to pay a BBC subscription? I certainly would.
The problem is the BBC cannot fund everything it’s supposed to do with what’s likely going to be reduced funding .
Regional news and local radio amongst other areas.
If a subscription model causes reduced funding then you're admitting that at the moment people are being charged for content they don't want.
I only watch a few things on the BBC , my usage goes up and down , so during Wimbledon and the Olympics and other big sporting events I watch all day . I watch Newsnight and the BBC News Channel . The odd documentary and some things on BBC4 . I’m happy to pay the license fee and see it as for the greater good to protect the vast range of things the BBC offers .
Having seen the tripe that masquerades as state broadcasters in other countries we are lucky to have the BBC .
New New Labour finally show a bit of principled backbone.
Only joking!
Blue Tories, Red Tories, same shite.
Yes. By playing soooooo safety first ahead of the general election, not allowing the Tories a slither of clear water to exploit, Labour are now losing more voters than if they allowed some clear water.
And that way madness lies
How exactly do you conclude they are “losing voters”?
Easy. You are hell bent on voting Labour next time regardless, but do you actually agree with what Ashworth is saying? Really?
Do you agree with Blunkett, Labour should embrace Bravermans policy, not vote against it?
Now imagine yourself in two minds about voting Labour to start with, because they are too close to Tory policy positions.
I think this is right. Particularly for younger voters. But then they are far less likely to vote so...
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
It might be if your land was covered with rhododendrons. But that is pretty extreme!
Indeed. Most of the projects I have been involved with have been either lowland chalk/limestone or river valley reshaping - undoing the canalisation of former centuries. The most common way of rewilding as part of the widespread Wild East project is just leaving the hell alone and letting nature take its course.
My cousin has farmland in Oxfordshire. I can assure you that the last thing being done is "letting nature take its course".
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
Oh I get all of that. The only thing they have shown themselves to be good at is packaging and selling their better products to a global audience. Like Attenborough documentaries.
So again, in the commissioning meeting supposedly we have the BBC Editor saying no thanks to the final episode, we can't fund that, but if the co-producers do we will buy it for iPlayer anyway. Thus reducing the amount of product they can flog globally. And accepting that the series now of 5 will be missing the conclusion in episode 6?
Or, the real world. The rough cuts are reviewed. The political impact of episode 6 is a problem for the Tories. So simply cut it down to 5 and bury the 6th part on iPlayer. Nobody watches Attenborough on iPlayer so nobody will notice. Erm...
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
Surely if you find it great value you should be equally happy to pay a BBC subscription? I certainly would.
The problem is the BBC cannot fund everything it’s supposed to do with what’s likely going to be reduced funding .
Regional news and local radio amongst other areas.
If a subscription model causes reduced funding then you're admitting that at the moment people are being charged for content they don't want.
I only watch a few things on the BBC , my usage goes up and down , so during Wimbledon and the Olympics and other big sporting events I watch all day . I watch Newsnight and the BBC News Channel . The odd documentary and some things on BBC4 . I’m happy to pay the license fee and see it as for the greater good to protect the vast range of things the BBC offers .
Having seen the tripe that masquerades as state broadcasters in other countries we are lucky to have the BBC .
Your problem is that you're trying to defend people being charged for content they don't want but only if they want competitors' content.
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
Its not fit for purpose though is it? There is ambiguity about who can say what.
There is no ambiguity.
Lineker was allowed to say it.
Then the BBC decided the Government wouldn't like it and tried to rewrite the rules retrospectively.
I disagree. I think the BBC management, as well as Daily Mail and government, genuinely believed the same impartiality rules for News and Current Affairs could and did technically apply to absolutely everyone else as well - despite how impossible that is and utterly embarrassing thinking that could actually work in practice.
When the BBC announced his new contract, back in September 2020, they specifically mentioned social media use.
“ Gary Lineker has taken a £400,000 pay cut to remain as host of Match of the Day for the next five years, along with an agreement to be more careful in his use of Twitter to push political causes.
Tim Davie, the new BBC director general, announced the deal at the launch of the corporation’s annual report, emphasising that all BBC staff would be bound by strict new social media guidelines within weeks.
Lineker, who earlier this year suggested it was time to make the BBC licence fee voluntary, took home £1.75m in the last financial year, well ahead of any other employee. He has attracted the ire of rightwing media outlets for tweeting criticism of the government and Brexit.
“Gary knows that he has responsibilities to the BBC in terms of his use of social media,” said Davie, referring to the new social media rules for employees.”
Having gone out of their way to say that, they’ve found themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place, of being seen to act when he again gets over-excited on social media.
One special rule for jug ears, another rule for everyone else?
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
It might be if your land was covered with rhododendrons. But that is pretty extreme!
Indeed. Most of the projects I have been involved with have been either lowland chalk/limestone or river valley reshaping - undoing the canalisation of former centuries. The most common way of rewilding as part of the widespread Wild East project is just leaving the hell alone and letting nature take its course.
My cousin has farmland in Oxfordshire. I can assure you that the last thing being done is "letting nature take its course".
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
Oh I get all of that. The only thing they have shown themselves to be good at is packaging and selling their better products to a global audience. Like Attenborough documentaries.
So again, in the commissioning meeting supposedly we have the BBC Editor saying no thanks to the final episode, we can't fund that, but if the co-producers do we will buy it for iPlayer anyway. Thus reducing the amount of product they can flog globally. And accepting that the series now of 5 will be missing the conclusion in episode 6?
Or, the real world. The rough cuts are reviewed. The political impact of episode 6 is a problem for the Tories. So simply cut it down to 5 and bury the 6th part on iPlayer. Nobody watches Attenborough on iPlayer so nobody will notice. Erm...
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
But that is the problem isn't it. Those who are happy to pay and see value in the institution (which on balance includes me) expecting those who do not see value and who prefer other channels, to be forced to pay as well. The normal, reasonable response should be to say that those who want to pay, can, through a subscription just like Sky or Netflix. Your position is akin to telling people they should be forced, by law, to pay for an Amazon Prime subscription even when they have no desire to use that service.
There is, I agree, a public service element to this but this could be be paid for either from General Taxation or by a small levy on all the other channels.
I would probably pay the subscription. I do not expect others to pay for my entertainment.
Okay then a halfway house without a subscription. So adverts on the main stations and a reasonably small levy or tax to ensure the public service element .
Yep. That would work as well. Though I was under the impression there was a massive objection to advertising. If it is acceptable then that seems an even better way to go. In this day and age, muting the adverts seems to be the norm in most households anyway.
I think that halfway house would gain support although of course other commercial channels might get annoyed as their ad income would likely be reduced .
Labour lead is twenty-three points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 27% (-4) Lab 50% (+3) Lib Dem 9% (+1) Other 15% (+1) Fieldwork: 10th - 13th March 2023 Sample: 1,561 GB adults (Changes from 2nd - 6th March 2023)
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
Oh I get all of that. The only thing they have shown themselves to be good at is packaging and selling their better products to a global audience. Like Attenborough documentaries.
So again, in the commissioning meeting supposedly we have the BBC Editor saying no thanks to the final episode, we can't fund that, but if the co-producers do we will buy it for iPlayer anyway. Thus reducing the amount of product they can flog globally. And accepting that the series now of 5 will be missing the conclusion in episode 6?
Or, the real world. The rough cuts are reviewed. The political impact of episode 6 is a problem for the Tories. So simply cut it down to 5 and bury the 6th part on iPlayer. Nobody watches Attenborough on iPlayer so nobody will notice. Erm...
I'm just about willing to believe that there's a genuine televisual reason for all this. But it is odd that Ep 6 is considered OK to put on iplayer (which is how the BBC seems to want us to watch everything these days) but not on the main channel.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
If the BBC could rent out their entire archive as an international subscription service, there would be no need for a licence fee in the UK.
Look at what Disney have done, they now have 160m subscribers paying £10 a month.
I'm just about willing to believe that there's a genuine televisual reason for all this. But it is odd that Ep 6 is considered OK to put on iplayer (which is how the BBC seems to want us to watch everything these days) but not on the main channel.
Tory MPs don't know how to use iPlayer on their taxpayer funded iPads?
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
It might be if your land was covered with rhododendrons. But that is pretty extreme!
Indeed. Most of the projects I have been involved with have been either lowland chalk/limestone or river valley reshaping - undoing the canalisation of former centuries. The most common way of rewilding as part of the widespread Wild East project is just leaving the hell alone and letting nature take its course.
My cousin has farmland in Oxfordshire. I can assure you that the last thing being done is "letting nature take its course".
He' not called Clarkson is he ?
LOL no. But another friend's farm borders Clarkson's. He says the queues for the farm shop are insane.
I just finished watching Clarkson's Farm S2. Very interesting. I didn't think they would be able to maintain the appeal of the first series which was about the novelty of Jeremy trying to drive a tractor.
But this one I thought was very interesting in looking (albeit through a docudrama lens) at local planning.
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
Its not fit for purpose though is it? There is ambiguity about who can say what.
There is no ambiguity.
Lineker was allowed to say it.
Then the BBC decided the Government wouldn't like it and tried to rewrite the rules retrospectively.
I disagree. I think the BBC management, as well as Daily Mail and government, genuinely believed the same impartiality rules for News and Current Affairs could and did technically apply to absolutely everyone else as well - despite how impossible that is and utterly embarrassing thinking that could actually work in practice.
When the BBC announced his new contract, back in September 2020, they specifically mentioned social media use.
“ Gary Lineker has taken a £400,000 pay cut to remain as host of Match of the Day for the next five years, along with an agreement to be more careful in his use of Twitter to push political causes.
Tim Davie, the new BBC director general, announced the deal at the launch of the corporation’s annual report, emphasising that all BBC staff would be bound by strict new social media guidelines within weeks.
Lineker, who earlier this year suggested it was time to make the BBC licence fee voluntary, took home £1.75m in the last financial year, well ahead of any other employee. He has attracted the ire of rightwing media outlets for tweeting criticism of the government and Brexit.
“Gary knows that he has responsibilities to the BBC in terms of his use of social media,” said Davie, referring to the new social media rules for employees.”
Having gone out of their way to say that, they’ve found themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place, of being seen to act when he again gets over-excited on social media.
One special rule for jug ears, another rule for everyone else?
More likely to be a rule that’s too ambiguous to be enforced, and with a prior record of it not always being enforced consistently.
The BBC though need to think long and hard about the intersection of employee/contractor freedom of speech with BBC impartiality. What is in place now is not fit for purpose.
Maybe it is entirely fit for purpose, if BBC management hadn't abandoned it to try and keep the Tories happy.
On Thursday they said everything was fine.
On Friday they panicked.
Its not fit for purpose though is it? There is ambiguity about who can say what.
There is no ambiguity.
Lineker was allowed to say it.
Then the BBC decided the Government wouldn't like it and tried to rewrite the rules retrospectively.
I disagree. I think the BBC management, as well as Daily Mail and government, genuinely believed the same impartiality rules for News and Current Affairs could and did technically apply to absolutely everyone else as well - despite how impossible that is and utterly embarrassing thinking that could actually work in practice.
When the BBC announced his new contract, back in September 2020, they specifically mentioned social media use.
“ Gary Lineker has taken a £400,000 pay cut to remain as host of Match of the Day for the next five years, along with an agreement to be more careful in his use of Twitter to push political causes.
Tim Davie, the new BBC director general, announced the deal at the launch of the corporation’s annual report, emphasising that all BBC staff would be bound by strict new social media guidelines within weeks.
Lineker, who earlier this year suggested it was time to make the BBC licence fee voluntary, took home £1.75m in the last financial year, well ahead of any other employee. He has attracted the ire of rightwing media outlets for tweeting criticism of the government and Brexit.
“Gary knows that he has responsibilities to the BBC in terms of his use of social media,” said Davie, referring to the new social media rules for employees.”
Having gone out of their way to say that, they’ve found themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place, of being seen to act when he again gets over-excited on social media.
One special rule for jug ears, another rule for everyone else?
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
If the BBC could rent out their entire archive as an international subscription service, there would be no need for a licence fee in the UK.
Look at what Disney have done, they now have 160m subscribers paying £10 a month.
I think Disney is the sub service I watched the most recently. The BBC could still probably make an international paid for iplayer work, but it's lost so much time on that front.
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
But that is the problem isn't it. Those who are happy to pay and see value in the institution (which on balance includes me) expecting those who do not see value and who prefer other channels, to be forced to pay as well. The normal, reasonable response should be to say that those who want to pay, can, through a subscription just like Sky or Netflix. Your position is akin to telling people they should be forced, by law, to pay for an Amazon Prime subscription even when they have no desire to use that service.
There is, I agree, a public service element to this but this could be be paid for either from General Taxation or by a small levy on all the other channels.
I would probably pay the subscription. I do not expect others to pay for my entertainment.
Okay then a halfway house without a subscription. So adverts on the main stations and a reasonably small levy or tax to ensure the public service element .
Yep. That would work as well. Though I was under the impression there was a massive objection to advertising. If it is acceptable then that seems an even better way to go. In this day and age, muting the adverts seems to be the norm in most households anyway.
Advertising on the BBC is a bad idea.
Why? Because it would completely screw up the U.K. TV system ecosystem.
For a start, the BBC would be in direct impact with ITV for ad revenues and almost certainly reduce significantly the amount the latter gets. The amount of TV money going into the market is not going to increase or nowhere the near amount needed to accommodate two major players.
Secondly, you then have the impact on Channel 4, which would likely become unsustainable as a channel.
Finally, if the BBC needs more ad money, then the programmes will be changed to maximise that so more mass market shows. fewer niche but more highbrow programming. If you want that fine but...
Norfolk Police Officials not covering themselves in glory. Brilliant name, though - Giles Orpen-Smellie.
Norfolk's police and crime commissioner has sparked anger after saying many of the county's 20mph speed limits will never lead to speeding drivers being taken to court.
Giles Orpen-Smellie said many 20mph signs are merely advisory, meaning motorists who drive between 20mph and 30mph cannot be prosecuted.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
It might be if your land was covered with rhododendrons. But that is pretty extreme!
Indeed. Most of the projects I have been involved with have been either lowland chalk/limestone or river valley reshaping - undoing the canalisation of former centuries. The most common way of rewilding as part of the widespread Wild East project is just leaving the hell alone and letting nature take its course.
My cousin has farmland in Oxfordshire. I can assure you that the last thing being done is "letting nature take its course".
He' not called Clarkson is he ?
LOL no. But another friend's farm borders Clarkson's. He says the queues for the farm shop are insane.
I just finished watching Clarkson's Farm S2. Very interesting. I didn't think they would be able to maintain the appeal of the first series which was about the novelty of Jeremy trying to drive a tractor.
But this one I thought was very interesting in looking (albeit through a docudrama lens) at local planning.
Clarkson's farm has shown precisely who the anti-growth coalition is in this country. Jumped up NIMBYs aided and abetted by jobsworth local councillors.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that was as a result of some clipboardista trying to “professionalise”* rewilding.
Just leaving a piece of land alone would be painful to such people - how can you write a 100 page specification which says “do nothing. Nothing done”
*having no professional skills in land management, of course
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
If the BBC could rent out their entire archive as an international subscription service, there would be no need for a licence fee in the UK.
Look at what Disney have done, they now have 160m subscribers paying £10 a month.
Yup, monetise the content, allow proceeds to be directed to a commercial arm with a proportion reserved by law to be passed to the PSB division to fund core services, you may not even need any form of licence fee.
I think setting up two divisions is likely the way forward because it kills off once and for all this issue about the BBC doing “too much” or being too involved in chasing ratings and presenting a quasi commercial face.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
It might be if your land was covered with rhododendrons. But that is pretty extreme!
Indeed. Most of the projects I have been involved with have been either lowland chalk/limestone or river valley reshaping - undoing the canalisation of former centuries. The most common way of rewilding as part of the widespread Wild East project is just leaving the hell alone and letting nature take its course.
But that risks acres of brambles, nettles and docks. With the odd hawthorn for a decade or two.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
It might be if your land was covered with rhododendrons. But that is pretty extreme!
Indeed. Most of the projects I have been involved with have been either lowland chalk/limestone or river valley reshaping - undoing the canalisation of former centuries. The most common way of rewilding as part of the widespread Wild East project is just leaving the hell alone and letting nature take its course.
My cousin has farmland in Oxfordshire. I can assure you that the last thing being done is "letting nature take its course".
He' not called Clarkson is he ?
LOL no. But another friend's farm borders Clarkson's. He says the queues for the farm shop are insane.
I just finished watching Clarkson's Farm S2. Very interesting. I didn't think they would be able to maintain the appeal of the first series which was about the novelty of Jeremy trying to drive a tractor.
But this one I thought was very interesting in looking (albeit through a docudrama lens) at local planning.
It also has some beautiful camera work highlighting the delights of the British countryside. I very much enjoyed both series. There is a reason Clarkson got an award from the farmers - he has given a platform to their challenges in a way that they never could before.
Quite an interesting article from David Gauke over on Conservative Home. He points out that John Arlott, the voice of BBC cricket for over 30 years, was well known for his liberal views, appeared on political shows (Any Questions), and was a vociferous opponent of apartheid and of England touring South Africa during the 1960s and 1970s, when such views were pretty controversial. Nobody raised much of an eyebrow at the time.
Probably scared of him. Seriously grumpy old sod when riled.
For a while, the Mail and the Government were completely symbiotic. That's broken down a bit now- both right-of-centre, sure, but noticeably different shades of blue.
For a while they were both pursuing Brexit at any cost.
Now the Government is a bit more concerned with fixing the problems caused by Brexit, the Mail is less onside...
The Mail will have suffered a double body blow with the ignominious removal of both Boris and Liz Truss - two politicians they set an enormous amount of store by. Those dual failures would have shaken the paper's world view to the core. How it deals with Rishi is a weird one. It'll possibly prefer him to Starmer, but his very presence is a nagging reminder of (Mail-backed) past disasters. Psychologically difficult to handle when you believe you're always right.
Labour lead is twenty-three points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 27% (-4) Lab 50% (+3) Lib Dem 9% (+1) Other 15% (+1) Fieldwork: 10th - 13th March 2023 Sample: 1,561 GB adults (Changes from 2nd - 6th March 2023)
If for real, that’s an awful poll for the Tories, but it’s claiming fieldwork today?
If other firms follow suit, the “clear blue water between Tory and Labour on unfettered illegal immigration” push from Tory’s has dramatically blown up in their faces 😟
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
Oh I get all of that. The only thing they have shown themselves to be good at is packaging and selling their better products to a global audience. Like Attenborough documentaries.
So again, in the commissioning meeting supposedly we have the BBC Editor saying no thanks to the final episode, we can't fund that, but if the co-producers do we will buy it for iPlayer anyway. Thus reducing the amount of product they can flog globally. And accepting that the series now of 5 will be missing the conclusion in episode 6?
Or, the real world. The rough cuts are reviewed. The political impact of episode 6 is a problem for the Tories. So simply cut it down to 5 and bury the 6th part on iPlayer. Nobody watches Attenborough on iPlayer so nobody will notice. Erm...
I'm just about willing to believe that there's a genuine televisual reason for all this. But it is odd that Ep 6 is considered OK to put on iplayer (which is how the BBC seems to want us to watch everything these days) but not on the main channel.
A model of broadcasting a core amount of content and then having additional content to stream for those most interested isn't a bad idea. It means you can keep a variety of content being broadcast, but you can also serve additional content to those most interested. Otherwise the BBC is strictly limited to providing a fixed amount of content for its broadcast channels.
It's just a bit suspicious that the extra content in this case is that which would rile government backbenchers and their preferred newspapers.
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
But that is the problem isn't it. Those who are happy to pay and see value in the institution (which on balance includes me) expecting those who do not see value and who prefer other channels, to be forced to pay as well. The normal, reasonable response should be to say that those who want to pay, can, through a subscription just like Sky or Netflix. Your position is akin to telling people they should be forced, by law, to pay for an Amazon Prime subscription even when they have no desire to use that service.
There is, I agree, a public service element to this but this could be be paid for either from General Taxation or by a small levy on all the other channels.
I would probably pay the subscription. I do not expect others to pay for my entertainment.
Okay then a halfway house without a subscription. So adverts on the main stations and a reasonably small levy or tax to ensure the public service element .
Yep. That would work as well. Though I was under the impression there was a massive objection to advertising. If it is acceptable then that seems an even better way to go. In this day and age, muting the adverts seems to be the norm in most households anyway.
Advertising on the BBC is a bad idea.
Why? Because it would completely screw up the U.K. TV system ecosystem.
For a start, the BBC would be in direct impact with ITV for ad revenues and almost certainly reduce significantly the amount the latter gets. The amount of TV money going into the market is not going to increase or nowhere the near amount needed to accommodate two major players.
Secondly, you then have the impact on Channel 4, which would likely become unsustainable as a channel.
Finally, if the BBC needs more ad money, then the programmes will be changed to maximise that so more mass market shows. fewer niche but more highbrow programming. If you want that fine but...
Do we not also exist in a market where revenues from advertising are going to diminish over time? You don’t get the reach you used to have with TV advertising, surely it becomes cheaper to advertise and less lucrative from a broadcasters’ perspective? This is something all current channels are going to have to grapple with at some point.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
Oh I get all of that. The only thing they have shown themselves to be good at is packaging and selling their better products to a global audience. Like Attenborough documentaries.
So again, in the commissioning meeting supposedly we have the BBC Editor saying no thanks to the final episode, we can't fund that, but if the co-producers do we will buy it for iPlayer anyway. Thus reducing the amount of product they can flog globally. And accepting that the series now of 5 will be missing the conclusion in episode 6?
Or, the real world. The rough cuts are reviewed. The political impact of episode 6 is a problem for the Tories. So simply cut it down to 5 and bury the 6th part on iPlayer. Nobody watches Attenborough on iPlayer so nobody will notice. Erm...
I'm just about willing to believe that there's a genuine televisual reason for all this. But it is odd that Ep 6 is considered OK to put on iplayer (which is how the BBC seems to want us to watch everything these days) but not on the main channel.
An acquaintance works for the BBC, in this area. He is very, very aggressive about “If we are paying for the full cost of the production we get ALL the rights”.
As he tells it, the number of weird exceptions he gets requested “Can’t you leave out the southern Albanian TikTok rights?”…
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
If the BBC could rent out their entire archive as an international subscription service, there would be no need for a licence fee in the UK.
Look at what Disney have done, they now have 160m subscribers paying £10 a month.
Yup, monetise the content, allow proceeds to be directed to a commercial arm with a proportion reserved by law to be passed to the PSB division to fund core services, you may not even need any form of licence fee.
I think setting up two divisions is likely the way forward because it kills off once and for all this issue about the BBC doing “too much” or being too involved in chasing ratings and presenting a quasi commercial face.
The irony is the BBC will end up with a much diminished offering of exactly what it set its face against donkeys years ago.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
Oh I get all of that. The only thing they have shown themselves to be good at is packaging and selling their better products to a global audience. Like Attenborough documentaries.
So again, in the commissioning meeting supposedly we have the BBC Editor saying no thanks to the final episode, we can't fund that, but if the co-producers do we will buy it for iPlayer anyway. Thus reducing the amount of product they can flog globally. And accepting that the series now of 5 will be missing the conclusion in episode 6?
Or, the real world. The rough cuts are reviewed. The political impact of episode 6 is a problem for the Tories. So simply cut it down to 5 and bury the 6th part on iPlayer. Nobody watches Attenborough on iPlayer so nobody will notice. Erm...
I'm just about willing to believe that there's a genuine televisual reason for all this. But it is odd that Ep 6 is considered OK to put on iplayer (which is how the BBC seems to want us to watch everything these days) but not on the main channel.
An acquaintance works for the BBC, in this area. He is very, very aggressive about “If we are paying for the full cost of the production we get ALL the rights”.
As he tells it, the number of weird exceptions he gets requested “Can’t you leave out the southern Albanian TikTok rights?”…
Labour lead is twenty-three points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 27% (-4) Lab 50% (+3) Lib Dem 9% (+1) Other 15% (+1) Fieldwork: 10th - 13th March 2023 Sample: 1,561 GB adults (Changes from 2nd - 6th March 2023)
If for real, that’s an awful poll for the Tories, but it’s claiming fieldwork today?
If other firms follow suit, the “clear blue water between Tory and Labour on unfettered illegal immigration” push from Tory’s has dramatically blown up in their faces 😟
This is not about small boats. Only a few right wing Tory obsessives care about small boats. This is now much bigger than that. It's about whether the NASTY PARTY is back and what the public make of it.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
If the BBC could rent out their entire archive as an international subscription service, there would be no need for a licence fee in the UK.
Look at what Disney have done, they now have 160m subscribers paying £10 a month.
Yup, monetise the content, allow proceeds to be directed to a commercial arm with a proportion reserved by law to be passed to the PSB division to fund core services, you may not even need any form of licence fee.
I think setting up two divisions is likely the way forward because it kills off once and for all this issue about the BBC doing “too much” or being too involved in chasing ratings and presenting a quasi commercial face.
The irony is the BBC will end up with a much diminished offering of exactly what it set its face against donkeys years ago.
When it should have been a world leader.
Again - a problem created by the various Tory Governments not letting the BBC do what was required to create a global leader.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
Oh I get all of that. The only thing they have shown themselves to be good at is packaging and selling their better products to a global audience. Like Attenborough documentaries.
So again, in the commissioning meeting supposedly we have the BBC Editor saying no thanks to the final episode, we can't fund that, but if the co-producers do we will buy it for iPlayer anyway. Thus reducing the amount of product they can flog globally. And accepting that the series now of 5 will be missing the conclusion in episode 6?
Or, the real world. The rough cuts are reviewed. The political impact of episode 6 is a problem for the Tories. So simply cut it down to 5 and bury the 6th part on iPlayer. Nobody watches Attenborough on iPlayer so nobody will notice. Erm...
You're assuming what you want to prove.
I'm quoting the facts we know and comparing to the official story.
It is a fact that the same production company made 6 episodes It is a fact that the RSPB and WWF were co-producers of the 5 being broadcast It is a fact that the RSPB and WWF and Silverback Films are attributed as being responsible for the 6th episode It is a fact that the 6th episode is a conclusion to the previous 5 episodes (see the Countryfile screengrab)
We know this wasn't a separate episode commissioned separately as it shares the production company and the co-producers of the other 5 and wraps up a 6-episode series.
Those are the facts. As stated by the BBC and the production company and the co-producers. Why it is now seen as a separate episode is the part where we can make assumptions.
Quite an interesting article from David Gauke over on Conservative Home. He points out that John Arlott, the voice of BBC cricket for over 30 years, was well known for his liberal views, appeared on political shows (Any Questions), and was a vociferous opponent of apartheid and of England touring South Africa during the 1960s and 1970s, when such views were pretty controversial. Nobody raised much of an eyebrow at the time.
Probably scared of him. Seriously grumpy old sod when riled.
The main differences I can see are that: Any Questions is not Twitter. Room for nuance, explanation, discussion. Not just idiots shouting at each other. Arlott was pretty bright. He had strong views, but he had the intellectual capability to back them up.
Lineker tweeting is almost guaranteed to rile in a way that Arlott discussing his views on the radio is not.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
If the BBC could rent out their entire archive as an international subscription service, there would be no need for a licence fee in the UK.
Look at what Disney have done, they now have 160m subscribers paying £10 a month.
I think Disney is the sub service I watched the most recently. The BBC could still probably make an international paid for iplayer work, but it's lost so much time on that front.
Yes, they should have been on this a decade ago, when Netflix launched their online service and showed it could be done.
As others have said, a large part of the issue is getting the rights back in the first place, especially for older programmes that never would have considered international digital subscription services when they were first produced.
It's clear that Lineker, on his latest contract renewal, is required to follow the guidelines and rules.
And it's clear from the BBC grovelling apology this morning that he followed them
No it isn't. He's been silenced until the review which I hope will take 2 yrs...
He is still tweeting, so not silenced and not penalised.
He didn't break the guidelines, the BBC know that.
It sticks out a mile that he broke the guidelines he had agreed to abide by, in bringing the BBC into disrepute - just for a start.
AIUI he has 'agreed to follow guidelines', rather than keeping silent.
IMO the main thing it needs is Lineker to stop behaving like a dickhead, and get a measure of self-respect. It's not clear whether he is capable of that.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that was as a result of some clipboardista trying to “professionalise”* rewilding.
Just leaving a piece of land alone would be painful to such people - how can you write a 100 page specification which says “do nothing. Nothing done”
*having no professional skills in land management, of course
Was looking at a derelict house which comes with about 24 acres recently, in a, "I'm vaguely interested in planting some trees and letting some land rewild," kind of way, but my wife isn't so sure.
The land borders actively farmed grazing land, and we'd be likely to get ourselves into trouble if we allowed weed plants like ragwort and thistle to become established on our land, and then spread to theirs and cause problems for their cattle.
So that would be 24 acres to weed until the trees had become sufficiently well established to prevent the illegal weeds from taking over.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
Oh I get all of that. The only thing they have shown themselves to be good at is packaging and selling their better products to a global audience. Like Attenborough documentaries.
So again, in the commissioning meeting supposedly we have the BBC Editor saying no thanks to the final episode, we can't fund that, but if the co-producers do we will buy it for iPlayer anyway. Thus reducing the amount of product they can flog globally. And accepting that the series now of 5 will be missing the conclusion in episode 6?
Or, the real world. The rough cuts are reviewed. The political impact of episode 6 is a problem for the Tories. So simply cut it down to 5 and bury the 6th part on iPlayer. Nobody watches Attenborough on iPlayer so nobody will notice. Erm...
I'm just about willing to believe that there's a genuine televisual reason for all this. But it is odd that Ep 6 is considered OK to put on iplayer (which is how the BBC seems to want us to watch everything these days) but not on the main channel.
An acquaintance works for the BBC, in this area. He is very, very aggressive about “If we are paying for the full cost of the production we get ALL the rights”.
As he tells it, the number of weird exceptions he gets requested “Can’t you leave out the southern Albanian TikTok rights?”…
WHO is asking for these exceptions ?
Can you imagine Disney operating like this ?!?!!
I hope he's saying NO.
People commissioning the programs. He doesn’t think it is bad intent - just that the complexity thing is cultural.
He’s Polish. Very Polish. In the Gdańsk Post Office sense.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that was as a result of some clipboardista trying to “professionalise”* rewilding.
Just leaving a piece of land alone would be painful to such people - how can you write a 100 page specification which says “do nothing. Nothing done”
*having no professional skills in land management, of course
Was looking at a derelict house which comes with about 24 acres recently, in a, "I'm vaguely interested in planting some trees and letting some land rewild," kind of way, but my wife isn't so sure.
The land borders actively farmed grazing land, and we'd be likely to get ourselves into trouble if we allowed weed plants like ragwort and thistle to become established on our land, and then spread to theirs and cause problems for their cattle.
So that would be 24 acres to weed until the trees had become sufficiently well established to prevent the illegal weeds from taking over.
Find someone with goats? Put fencing around the trees, the goats will reduce everything else to a desert…..
On the SVB UK bank. Curious what's in it for HSBC, who have taken it over. Not obvious.
On the MotD stooshie, the BBC's social media policy is a red herring of course. The real issue is management incompetence due in part to individuals' lack of independence from the government.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that was as a result of some clipboardista trying to “professionalise”* rewilding.
Just leaving a piece of land alone would be painful to such people - how can you write a 100 page specification which says “do nothing. Nothing done”
*having no professional skills in land management, of course
Was looking at a derelict house which comes with about 24 acres recently, in a, "I'm vaguely interested in planting some trees and letting some land rewild," kind of way, but my wife isn't so sure.
The land borders actively farmed grazing land, and we'd be likely to get ourselves into trouble if we allowed weed plants like ragwort and thistle to become established on our land, and then spread to theirs and cause problems for their cattle.
So that would be 24 acres to weed until the trees had become sufficiently well established to prevent the illegal weeds from taking over.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
If the BBC could rent out their entire archive as an international subscription service, there would be no need for a licence fee in the UK.
Look at what Disney have done, they now have 160m subscribers paying £10 a month.
Yup, monetise the content, allow proceeds to be directed to a commercial arm with a proportion reserved by law to be passed to the PSB division to fund core services, you may not even need any form of licence fee.
I think setting up two divisions is likely the way forward because it kills off once and for all this issue about the BBC doing “too much” or being too involved in chasing ratings and presenting a quasi commercial face.
The irony is the BBC will end up with a much diminished offering of exactly what it set its face against donkeys years ago.
When it should have been a world leader.
Again - a problem created by the various Tory Governments not letting the BBC do what was required to create a global leader.
The key era to achieve it was likely around 1997 - 2010.
Chalk up another great success to Blair and Brown....
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
This is deeply suspect. What we know: 1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles" 2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF 3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats 4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
The Byzantine ways that the BBC cuts up the various broadcast rights for programs it commissions has long been a problem.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
If the BBC could rent out their entire archive as an international subscription service, there would be no need for a licence fee in the UK.
Look at what Disney have done, they now have 160m subscribers paying £10 a month.
I think Disney is the sub service I watched the most recently. The BBC could still probably make an international paid for iplayer work, but it's lost so much time on that front.
Yes, they should have been on this a decade ago, when Netflix launched their online service and showed it could be done.
As others have said, a large part of the issue is getting the rights back in the first place, especially for older programmes that never would have considered international digital subscription services when they were first produced.
Bureaucratic, institutional and cultural inertia. It’s exactly the same thing that afflicts the NHS. Because the BBC has been built into a National Institution of which people are rightly proud*, it is very difficult to propose sensible reform of that institution to take account of changing times, without being seen as being reactionary or extreme.
*witness also the politicisation of the argument, for which both right and left need to take some measure of blame for.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that was as a result of some clipboardista trying to “professionalise”* rewilding.
Just leaving a piece of land alone would be painful to such people - how can you write a 100 page specification which says “do nothing. Nothing done”
*having no professional skills in land management, of course
Was looking at a derelict house which comes with about 24 acres recently, in a, "I'm vaguely interested in planting some trees and letting some land rewild," kind of way, but my wife isn't so sure.
The land borders actively farmed grazing land, and we'd be likely to get ourselves into trouble if we allowed weed plants like ragwort and thistle to become established on our land, and then spread to theirs and cause problems for their cattle.
So that would be 24 acres to weed until the trees had become sufficiently well established to prevent the illegal weeds from taking over.
However, to allow trees to become established you just need tree guards around them and perhaps seasonal grazing. Possibly a 1/2m patch around each tree for a few years.
Planting broadleaf woodlands is perfectly normal stuff to do.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that was as a result of some clipboardista trying to “professionalise”* rewilding.
Just leaving a piece of land alone would be painful to such people - how can you write a 100 page specification which says “do nothing. Nothing done”
*having no professional skills in land management, of course
Was looking at a derelict house which comes with about 24 acres recently, in a, "I'm vaguely interested in planting some trees and letting some land rewild," kind of way, but my wife isn't so sure.
The land borders actively farmed grazing land, and we'd be likely to get ourselves into trouble if we allowed weed plants like ragwort and thistle to become established on our land, and then spread to theirs and cause problems for their cattle.
So that would be 24 acres to weed until the trees had become sufficiently well established to prevent the illegal weeds from taking over.
Find someone with goats? Put fencing around the trees, the goats will reduce everything else to a desert…..
My wife has dealt with goats before. I'll let you suggest it to her.
Labour lead is twenty-three points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 27% (-4) Lab 50% (+3) Lib Dem 9% (+1) Other 15% (+1) Fieldwork: 10th - 13th March 2023 Sample: 1,561 GB adults (Changes from 2nd - 6th March 2023)
If for real, that’s an awful poll for the Tories, but it’s claiming fieldwork today?
If other firms follow suit, the “clear blue water between Tory and Labour on unfettered illegal immigration” push from Tory’s has dramatically blown up in their faces 😟
This is not about small boats. Only a few right wing Tory obsessives care about small boats. This is now much bigger than that. It's about whether the NASTY PARTY is back and what the public make of it.
And about whether such a portrayal can be created and made to stick.
I hope Starmer has some good ideas - he'll be facing exactly the same questions within a couple of years of winning an election.
Comments
Red Card: Richard Sharp
Yellow Card: Tim Davie
Perhaps it just didn't fit the slot.
There is, I agree, a public service element to this but this could be be paid for either from General Taxation or by a small levy on all the other channels.
I would probably pay the subscription. I do not expect others to pay for my entertainment.
Regional news and local radio amongst other areas.
1 BBC commissions Silverback Films to make "Wild Isles"
2 Wild Isles is co-produced by the BBC, the OU, the RSBP and WWF
3 The 6th episode is the clear conclusion to the series which has an introduction, 4 shows on different habitat types, and finally a wrap up showing conservation efforts of those habitats
4 The series has been shot during 2020 - 2022. When it is announced in august 2022 its now only 5 shows. Everyone insists the 6th show isn't a 6th show. A "bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy" which was supposedly commissioned by the co-producers of the series entirely separately.
Does this make any sense? They are making a series of 6 films, the BBC will buy and market everything he makes, the BBC actually buy the whole series, but decide they can't broadcast it. So it is a very separate film. Made by the same production company and same co-producers in the same series which concludes the previous 5 shows. But definitely isn't the 6th episode.
Riiiiiiiight
Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt. Some politicians are so far into denial on some issues (such as encryption) that they are living on houseboats on Lake Victoria.
I think it is well aware that it is seen by many on the right as having a left-wing bias (rightly or wrongly). The “champagne corks popping” quote from 1997 has passed into its psyche. It is also well aware that its staff is disproportionately drawn from middle class metropolitan liberal circles.
It is very conscious of the ongoing culture war and I think very painfully self-aware that it is seen as “woke.”
All this was bubbling in the background so that if a situation like what happened with Lineker arose it would react somewhat disproportionately in order to try and demonstrate how even handed it could be (despite the fact the reaction would actually look extreme and, umm, not particularly even handed).
Just my two’penneth.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/15/gary-lineker-takes-bbc-pay-cut-and-agrees-to-tweet-more-carefully
“ Gary Lineker has taken a £400,000 pay cut to remain as host of Match of the Day for the next five years, along with an agreement to be more careful in his use of Twitter to push political causes.
Tim Davie, the new BBC director general, announced the deal at the launch of the corporation’s annual report, emphasising that all BBC staff would be bound by strict new social media guidelines within weeks.
Lineker, who earlier this year suggested it was time to make the BBC licence fee voluntary, took home £1.75m in the last financial year, well ahead of any other employee. He has attracted the ire of rightwing media outlets for tweeting criticism of the government and Brexit.
“Gary knows that he has responsibilities to the BBC in terms of his use of social media,” said Davie, referring to the new social media rules for employees.”
Having gone out of their way to say that, they’ve found themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place, of being seen to act when he again gets over-excited on social media.
Latest tweet from Lineker this morning will leave usual subjects fuming but impotent
Gary Lineker 58 mins ago "A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you."
For a while, the Mail and the Government were completely symbiotic. That's broken down a bit now- both right-of-centre, sure, but noticeably different shades of blue.
That takes a bit of getting used to, and means that just because the Mail is going off on one, it's not necessarily doing so as a government conduit.
Or even with the interests of the Conservative government at heart.
On Friday they shit themselves.
The guidelines didn't change. Only their reaction did.
It was made by Silverback Films - like the other 5. And co-produced by WWF and RSPB - like the other 5. Yet they are now claiming that this episode was nothing to do with the BBC. Despite buying it anyway.
So lets take a step back and consider the BBC argument. Silverback Films go to the BBC to get the commission to make this huge new Sir National Treasure series. Sets out the planned episodes - intro, 4 habitats, conclusion. "Oh no no no" says the commissioning editor "we don't want episode 6, there isn't enough of a market for Sir National Treasure to afford 6 films, we'll only buy the first 5". And then buy the 6th as well.
Its laughable.
It was a major reason why they couldn’t, easily, take the route of opening iPlayer etc to the world. Pay the license fee in any country, get the BBC. Which would have given the BBC enough foreign revenue, at some guesstimates, that it could have reduced the U.K. license fee to zero….
And old classic was to commission a program. The rights the BBC would get - after completely funding the program - were the U.K. rights. The company would then sell the program as “made for the BBC” around the world. It all made sense when you realised the close connections between people in the BBC and some of the companies involved.
Do you agree with Blunkett, Labour should embrace Bravermans policy, not vote against it?
Now imagine yourself in two minds about voting Labour to start with, because they are too close to Tory policy positions.
How has it worked in your experience.
It's clear that Lineker, on his latest contract renewal, is required to follow the guidelines and rules.
Such social media guidelines include things like "Always behave professionally, treating others with respect and courtesy at all times" and "Do not bring the BBC into disrepute".
The guy was throwing Hitler comparisons around to 7m people, FFS, without even a smidge of logic to his opinions.
As reported by the Independent, of all places:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bbc-impartiality-rules-what-gary-lineker-b2297335.html
Now the Government is a bit more concerned with fixing the problems caused by Brexit, the Mail is less onside...
Core National Service BBC (funded through general taxation or much reduced licence fee) - local and national news, world service, national events.
Commercial BBC - everything else, funded through subscription or advertising.
I would also suggest setting Commercial BBC up in a framework that allows it to monetise the BBC archives. I think most of us would pay a subscription to have a treasure trove of historic BBC content accessible on demand.
Having seen the tripe that masquerades as state broadcasters in other countries we are lucky to have the BBC .
So again, in the commissioning meeting supposedly we have the BBC Editor saying no thanks to the final episode, we can't fund that, but if the co-producers do we will buy it for iPlayer anyway. Thus reducing the amount of product they can flog globally. And accepting that the series now of 5 will be missing the conclusion in episode 6?
Or, the real world. The rough cuts are reviewed. The political impact of episode 6 is a problem for the Tories. So simply cut it down to 5 and bury the 6th part on iPlayer. Nobody watches Attenborough on iPlayer so nobody will notice. Erm...
It's an inherently ridiculous proposition.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/03/12/the-russian-army-is-running-out-of-t-72-tanks-and-quickly/
Trigger warning for @TOPPING - it relies on data sourced from Twitter.
They thought it was all over. It is now.
He didn't break the guidelines, the BBC know that.
Look at what Disney have done, they now have 160m subscribers paying £10 a month.
I just finished watching Clarkson's Farm S2. Very interesting. I didn't think they would be able to maintain the appeal of the first series which was about the novelty of Jeremy trying to drive a tractor.
But this one I thought was very interesting in looking (albeit through a docudrama lens) at local planning.
Why? Because it would completely screw up the U.K. TV system ecosystem.
For a start, the BBC would be in direct impact with ITV for ad revenues and almost certainly reduce significantly the amount the latter gets. The amount of TV money going into the market is not going to increase or nowhere the near amount needed to accommodate two major players.
Secondly, you then have the impact on Channel 4, which would likely become unsustainable as a channel.
Finally, if the BBC needs more ad money, then the programmes will be changed to maximise that so more mass market shows. fewer niche but more highbrow programming. If you want that fine but...
Norfolk's police and crime commissioner has sparked anger after saying many of the county's 20mph speed limits will never lead to speeding drivers being taken to court.
Giles Orpen-Smellie said many 20mph signs are merely advisory, meaning motorists who drive between 20mph and 30mph cannot be prosecuted.
He has called for a change in the law so that Norfolk police could take speeders to court.
https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/23368983.norfolk-police-commissioner-says-20mph-limits-advisory/
Suspect they have been using the wrong mechanisms to set them up. Other places seem to manage OK.
Just leaving a piece of land alone would be painful to such people - how can you write a 100 page specification which says “do nothing. Nothing done”
*having no professional skills in land management, of course
I think setting up two divisions is likely the way forward because it kills off once and for all this issue about the BBC doing “too much” or being too involved in chasing ratings and presenting a quasi commercial face.
Seriously grumpy old sod when riled.
If other firms follow suit, the “clear blue water between Tory and Labour on unfettered illegal immigration” push from Tory’s has dramatically blown up in their faces 😟
It's just a bit suspicious that the extra content in this case is that which would rile government backbenchers and their preferred newspapers.
As he tells it, the number of weird exceptions he gets requested “Can’t you leave out the southern Albanian TikTok rights?”…
When it should have been a world leader.
With subtle metaphors like that, I could be the next David Low.
Can you imagine Disney operating like this ?!?!!
I hope he's saying NO.
The history minded would be amused to hear that large bearings for the turret rings etc was a serious issue, apparently.
It is a fact that the same production company made 6 episodes
It is a fact that the RSPB and WWF were co-producers of the 5 being broadcast
It is a fact that the RSPB and WWF and Silverback Films are attributed as being responsible for the 6th episode
It is a fact that the 6th episode is a conclusion to the previous 5 episodes (see the Countryfile screengrab)
We know this wasn't a separate episode commissioned separately as it shares the production company and the co-producers of the other 5 and wraps up a 6-episode series.
Those are the facts. As stated by the BBC and the production company and the co-producers. Why it is now seen as a separate episode is the part where we can make assumptions.
Any Questions is not Twitter. Room for nuance, explanation, discussion. Not just idiots shouting at each other.
Arlott was pretty bright. He had strong views, but he had the intellectual capability to back them up.
Lineker tweeting is almost guaranteed to rile in a way that Arlott discussing his views on the radio is not.
As others have said, a large part of the issue is getting the rights back in the first place, especially for older programmes that never would have considered international digital subscription services when they were first produced.
AIUI he has 'agreed to follow guidelines', rather than keeping silent.
IMO the main thing it needs is Lineker to stop behaving like a dickhead, and get a measure of self-respect. It's not clear whether he is capable of that.
The land borders actively farmed grazing land, and we'd be likely to get ourselves into trouble if we allowed weed plants like ragwort and thistle to become established on our land, and then spread to theirs and cause problems for their cattle.
So that would be 24 acres to weed until the trees had become sufficiently well established to prevent the illegal weeds from taking over.
He’s Polish. Very Polish. In the Gdańsk Post Office sense.
On the MotD stooshie, the BBC's social media policy is a red herring of course. The real issue is management incompetence due in part to individuals' lack of independence from the government.
Chalk up another great success to Blair and Brown....
*witness also the politicisation of the argument, for which both right and left need to take some measure of blame for.
Planting broadleaf woodlands is perfectly normal stuff to do.
I hope Starmer has some good ideas - he'll be facing exactly the same questions within a couple of years of winning an election.