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.
get some pigs or sheep. They'll do it for you
I've been involved in doing the moth base-line surveys for what is Britain's smallest rewilding here in Devon. They have 4 cows and 2 Mangalitza - rather delightful Hungarian wooly pigs.
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.
Lets face it, BBC staff have always been openly influential on lots of issues from gay rights to black lives matter to the environment. Generally not news staff, which is fair enough as their roles are different.
Public opinion on black rights matter or indeed gay rights in the past was split as it is over refugees. So whats changed here?
“Appropriate regard for the BBC’s values” has been interpreted in a quite narrow and novel way by political appointees of the government.
It will be really hard to come back from this for the BBC, another example of the Johnson and post Johnson Conservative party being the least conservative government of my lifetime. Casually, frequently and repeatedly damaging our institutions chasing +2 or +3 poll rating bounces from Daily Mail headlines.
Less than 2 years to go and it shall be good riddance.
The key era to achieve it was likely around 1997 - 2010.
Chalk up another great success to Blair and Brown....
Strictly speaking it was the Competition Commission who thought that the BBC, ITV, and C4 teaming up would squash UK streaming competition. What they didn't anticipate was how much international competitors would encroach on the UK market. It's probably too late to fix now.
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.
If its tress you fancy try the Woodland Trust who will tell you what your options are.
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.
You rent the land to the goat herders…
Alternatively, after you have reached the End Of Goat Requirement, you introduce wolves.
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've recently been watching the philosophical discussions hosted by Bryan Magee on the BBC during the 70s and 80s (highly recommended by the way). During that time Magee was a Labour, and then later an SDP, MP. So are we saying he made no political utterances whilst being an MP? Clearly preposterous, so, again, what gives with the Lineker/impartiality thing?
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.
get some pigs or sheep. They'll do it for you
I've been involved in doing the moth base-line surveys for what is Britain's smallest rewilding here in Devon. They have 4 cows and 2 Mangalitza - rather delightful Hungarian wooly pigs.
It has been a delight to watch the forest develop over the last 15 years. My other half helps out as a volunteer and they do lots of wildlife surveys ( bugs, birds, reptiles ). So if you fancy a moth survey up this way let me know and Ill provide some vittals.
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.
If its tress you fancy try the Woodland Trust who will tell you what your options are.
Maybe add a few apples and pears of rare native cultivars. Not wild, but adding a bit of garden fringe, and good for biodiversity. E.g. bees and similar.
Issue the Tories have is they can scream until they’re blue in the face about issues that may chime with the GBP - eg immigration.
It will mean not a jot if people are so fed up of them given their record in government that they are willing to vote for a change.
I.e give a party with some fresh faces a go at confronting the challenges, if they screw it up there’s no need to vote for them again in 4/5 years time.
This is going to be what costs the Tories the election. The fact that I think lots of people will be willing to give Labour a try, even if they don’t align fully with their sensibilities - things feel so dysfunctional under the Tories that it’s got to be worth a go trying some new ideas out.
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.
get some pigs or sheep. They'll do it for you
I've been involved in doing the moth base-line surveys for what is Britain's smallest rewilding here in Devon. They have 4 cows and 2 Mangalitza - rather delightful Hungarian wooly pigs.
It has been a delight to watch the forest develop over the last 15 years. My other half helps out as a volunteer and they do lots of wildlife surveys ( bugs, birds, reptiles ). So if you fancy a moth survey up this way let me know and Ill provide some vittals.
I'll be very happy to take you up on that. May - July probably the best results in terms of numbers of moths and diversity. Preferably a warm, close still night.
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.
Everyone should care about stopping the boats and drowning of adults and children
Only yesterday dozens drowned in the Mediterranean off Italy
Indeed Macron highlighted this issue as a European one and that the UK and Europe will cooperate on
Our family have lost loved ones at sea and in two cases their bodies were not recovered
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.
get some pigs or sheep. They'll do it for you
I've been involved in doing the moth base-line surveys for what is Britain's smallest rewilding here in Devon. They have 4 cows and 2 Mangalitza - rather delightful Hungarian wooly pigs.
It has been a delight to watch the forest develop over the last 15 years. My other half helps out as a volunteer and they do lots of wildlife surveys ( bugs, birds, reptiles ). So if you fancy a moth survey up this way let me know and Ill provide some vittals.
I'll be very happy to take you up on that. May - July probably the best results in terms of numbers of moths and diversity. Preferably a warm, close still night.
ok
Ill send you contact details if you fancy a trip to the wilds of Warwickshire
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.
You could just listen to the interview with Tanya Steel, CEO of WWF UK on the Today programme this morning (about 1 hour 50 mins in) where she explains that the 6th episode was made “long after” the other 5 commissioned by the charities not BBC and the bbc offered to host this 6th on the iPlayer.
She is asked if it was suppressed and says that it’s categorically untrue.
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.
get some pigs or sheep. They'll do it for you
I've been involved in doing the moth base-line surveys for what is Britain's smallest rewilding here in Devon. They have 4 cows and 2 Mangalitza - rather delightful Hungarian wooly pigs.
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.
No you are wrong. There’s two sides to it Roger.
What is clear from Linekers tweet, just like all Guardianista he refers to the channel crosses as refugees, fleeing persecution - it’s all a UK refugee/Tory nasty party issue. But Contrast and compare with how the Tory’s designed the policy, and the Mail on Sunday front page editorial and Sunak at PMQs perfectly described it - not refugees, the invasion is illegal immigration and needs a clear immigration/tough border policy, that would also be vote winning dividing line between Tory and Labour.
The Tories and their friends are labelling absolutely everyone who comes across on a dingy a criminal, part of an invasion force - and insisting they should be detained as criminals, forfeit rights due to their actions.
Nobody needs to be told by Lineker the weakness of this Tory position rests on what have boat people actually done wrong to deserve this label and treatment, don’t need to be told by anyone labelling people who done no wrong, never been convicted of a crime as second class people and criminals, is exactly the same as 1930s, it’s patently obvious to us all, we don’t need this patronising.
And that wasn’t just Germany anyway, that’s LINEKER’S RACIST SPIN - but that 1930s thing was everywhere all at once is proper history.
And this is where you are wrong, is it a nasty Tory, or nasty Daily Mail who pushes for this policy because it puts Labour in a bad spot and wins votes? Or is this not what we should expect or even demand from politics, when we take sides in it?
Unless of course you are calling this not a politics at all, but a question of morality, moral lines which should not be crossed is government policy? Is that what you and Lineker really saying?
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.
Its laughable.
Thing is, the Guardian claims very strongly that people both in the BBC and the production company have said the sixth episode was dropped for political reasons. We can't independently verify the anonymous quotes, but the BBC denial making no sense whatsoever certainly corroborates the assertion .
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.
You could just listen to the interview with Tanya Steel, CEO of WWF UK on the Today programme this morning (about 1 hour 50 mins in) where she explains that the 6th episode was made “long after” the other 5 commissioned by the charities not BBC and the bbc offered to host this 6th on the iPlayer.
She is asked if it was suppressed and says that it’s categorically untrue.
You could just listen to the interview with Tanya Steel, CEO of WWF UK on the Today programme this morning (about 1 hour 50 mins in) where she explains that the 6th episode was made “long after” the other 5 commissioned by the charities not BBC and the bbc offered to host this 6th on the iPlayer.
She is asked if it was suppressed and says that it’s categorically untrue.
I'm inclined to believe this. But it's an odd BBC decision, since the programme is clearly of considerable public interest and since it will be shown on iplayer it's equally clearly not seen to be offensive in any way. So why not broadcast it?
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.
Everyone should care about stopping the boats and drowning of adults and children
Only yesterday dozens drowned in the Mediterranean off Italy
Indeed Macron highlighted this issue as a European one and that the UK and Europe will cooperate on
Our family have lost loved ones at sea and in two cases their bodies were not recovered
There’s a reason traditional Guernsey jumpers were knitted with individual patterns unique to each fisherman - after a couple of days in the sea it’s often the only way a body is readily identifiable.
A lot of the care is because they sit next to real farmland and communities who dont want wild boar or ragwort and also because they still have to follow Defra rules on tagging cattle for instance. But the book by Isabella Tree is worth a read if you havent already done 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.
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.
get some pigs or sheep. They'll do it for you
I've been involved in doing the moth base-line surveys for what is Britain's smallest rewilding here in Devon. They have 4 cows and 2 Mangalitza - rather delightful Hungarian wooly pigs.
It has been a delight to watch the forest develop over the last 15 years. My other half helps out as a volunteer and they do lots of wildlife surveys ( bugs, birds, reptiles ). So if you fancy a moth survey up this way let me know and Ill provide some vittals.
Must be one of the moth interesting posts I've ever seen on here, Alan.
Handled terribly by the BBC but I hope/think they'll survive and prosper for a long time yet. Far too much moaning about the 'broken model' of the LF imo. I can think of at least 100 things more broken than the BBC funding model to worry about.
I notice that all the ideas around rewilding involve some pretty specific curation and management.
Doesn't surprise me, simply from first principles. Farmland won't be on the natural trajectory of succession eg. open clearing to scrub to birch and alder to oak and beech and pine or whatever the local soil and climate allow. Simply leaving it would end up with US style secondary forest, AIUI, so you need to give the process a twitch in the right direction, even allowing for dormant wild species' seeds in the soil or blowing in. One would also need to have the right apex species or analogues, e.g. pigs to do the rotovating and cattle to browse and graze as needed, till you have a dynamically stable patchwork.
Edit: or, indeed, preventing browsing. It's been interesting seeing the rewilding and reforesting of Rum over the decades, from sheepwalk/deer hunt to something more primal. That relied on fencing off new mixed plantations for some years till they could stand having the deer in them.
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.
Everyone should care about stopping the boats and drowning of adults and children
Only yesterday dozens drowned in the Mediterranean off Italy
Indeed Macron highlighted this issue as a European one and that the UK and Europe will cooperate on
Our family have lost loved ones at sea and in two cases their bodies were not recovered
With respect to your familiy, it isn't about small boats at all, it's about an arms-length attempt by the government to use its political appointments to crack down on public dissent by anyone prominent who is on the BBC payroll. Whether you agree or not with what Lineker wrote is immaterial.
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Handled terribly by the BBC but I hope/think they'll survive and prosper for a long time yet. Far too much moaning about the 'broken model' of the LF imo. I can think of at least 100 things more broken than the BBC funding model to worry about.
The very mindset that has got the BBC to this point. Well done.
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.
The previous Deltapoll was highlighted here as a clear sign of the tide turning (I think GIN said it was obvious that the shift back had begun and would continue till the election), but most of us thought it was either an outlier or a short-terms response to the "Sunak is doing something! about immigration" line. This too may be an outlier, and maybe Delta needs a bit of dampening or larger samples or something. But the polling consensus does seem settled around a 20-point lead for now, except for that Savanta poll with the lead down to 11. What do we bet that the next Savanta will show it up again?
A lot of the care is because they sit next to real farmland and communities who dont want wild boar or ragwort and also because they still have to follow Defra rules on tagging cattle for instance. But the book by Isabella Tree is worth a read if you havent already done so.
I went to a fascinating talk by her husband, Charles Burrell. The land is now significantly more productive (lucrative) than before the rewilding.
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.
Everyone should care about stopping the boats and drowning of adults and children
Only yesterday dozens drowned in the Mediterranean off Italy
Indeed Macron highlighted this issue as a European one and that the UK and Europe will cooperate on
Our family have lost loved ones at sea and in two cases their bodies were not recovered
There’s a reason traditional Guernsey jumpers were knitted with individual patterns unique to each fisherman - after a couple of days in the sea it’s often the only way a body is readily identifiable.
My wife says that all her aunts had their own patterns that they put into their 'gansey's for their husband's and they would have recognised their own work
My wife's father had 8 brothers all Lossiemouth fishermen, 2 sisters, and 2 died in infancy
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
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've recently been watching the philosophical discussions hosted by Bryan Magee on the BBC during the 70s and 80s (highly recommended by the way). During that time Magee was a Labour, and then later an SDP, MP. So are we saying he made no political utterances whilst being an MP? Clearly preposterous, so, again, what gives with the Lineker/impartiality thing?
I think the Tories and their stooges at the BBC over-reacted to Lineker's comments for a few reasons. First, he is a working class man who played and commentates on that most working class of sports, football - and do he is an oik who needs putting in his place. Second, as a working class man expressing solidarity with refugees he demonstrates the falsity of the Tory narrative that says only hand wringing Guardianistas eating quinoa in their Islington Town houses care about refugees, while every salt of the earth working class type wants them all deported. Lastly, Lineker has over 8mn Twitter followers and the Tories are terrified of anyone with influence who opposes them. Anyway, I'm glad it all blew up in their faces. Lineker represents much that is right and decent about this country, and they the exact opposite.
A lot of the care is because they sit next to real farmland and communities who dont want wild boar or ragwort and also because they still have to follow Defra rules on tagging cattle for instance. But the book by Isabella Tree is worth a read if you havent already done so.
I went to a fascinating talk by her husband, Charles Burrell. The land is now significantly more productive (lucrative) than before the rewilding.
He's looking forward to reintroducing lynx...
Yes, well good luck with that ! I cant see his neighbours rejoicing at the prospect. On the other hand you like me probably get "sightings" of big cats in your area. Im sure there are some out there so it shows we can live with them.
Incidentally, this book by Polly Devlin is fascinating, by an earlyish adopter of the idea. It also highlights the amount of work needed to keep it 'wild' (though to her credit, that's part of the idea: she was recreating the old animal-based farming method of meadows which were very interventionist but also allowed wildflowers to grow).
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....
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.
"Daily Mail and government [,] genuinely believed"?????
Really? What evidence is there, that the DM and current HMG believe in ANYTHING, aside of course from their own self interest, narrowly defined?
It is a fact that the 6th episode is a conclusion to the previous 5 episodes (see the Countryfile screengrab)
You're assuming that's a fact, because you need it to prove what you want to prove.
I gather it's been corrected now.
Exactly. It has been corrected. They published what had been created and have had to amend it to what will be broadcast. You seem to be suggesting that the person writing the Countryfile page has made it up for nefarious purposes - they load what they are given.
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.
Everyone should care about stopping the boats and drowning of adults and children
Only yesterday dozens drowned in the Mediterranean off Italy
Indeed Macron highlighted this issue as a European one and that the UK and Europe will cooperate on
Our family have lost loved ones at sea and in two cases their bodies were not recovered
With respect to your familiy, it isn't about small boats at all, it's about an arms-length attempt by the government to use its political appointments to crack down on public dissent by anyone prominent who is on the BBC payroll. Whether you agree or not with what Lineker wrote is immaterial.
I was responding to @Roger comment that 'only a few right wing Tory obsessives care about boats, not the Lineker story
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"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."
I wonder how much of that is actually land adjacent to existing wildwood and simply taking in species dispersal from that? In that case a ploughed field would be the equivalent of a large clearing turned over by wild boar.
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"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."
A few years back, someone posted a link on here to an article about a small area of farmland near here (I think it was on the Fens) that has not been touched since the 1970s, as part of a project. My google-fu fails me, and I cannot find 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.
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.
You could just listen to the interview with Tanya Steel, CEO of WWF UK on the Today programme this morning (about 1 hour 50 mins in) where she explains that the 6th episode was made “long after” the other 5 commissioned by the charities not BBC and the bbc offered to host this 6th on the iPlayer.
She is asked if it was suppressed and says that it’s categorically untrue.
I don't think it's disputed that the original order was for five programmes and the sixth was added later. The BBC are asking us to believe that no editorial decision was made to include or not include it with the other five.
If they had said it was determined the sixth programme didn't fit in with the others and would be shown separately that would be a plausible explanation. It would also be a decision that people might disagree with.
It is a fact that the 6th episode is a conclusion to the previous 5 episodes (see the Countryfile screengrab)
You're assuming that's a fact, because you need it to prove what you want to prove.
I gather it's been corrected now.
Exactly. It has been corrected. They published what had been created and have had to amend it to what will be broadcast. You seem to be suggesting that the person writing the Countryfile page has made it up for nefarious purposes - they load what they are given.
Coming back to Clarkson, the one thing that seems to unite every farmer on the tellybox or in real life is the estimation of Countryfile as being hopelessly out of touch with reality and seeking to portray a fantasy idea of the countryside.
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.
You could just listen to the interview with Tanya Steel, CEO of WWF UK on the Today programme this morning (about 1 hour 50 mins in) where she explains that the 6th episode was made “long after” the other 5 commissioned by the charities not BBC and the bbc offered to host this 6th on the iPlayer.
She is asked if it was suppressed and says that it’s categorically untrue.
Long after? They took 2 years to make the series.
OK, so we're back to commissioning. Silverback Films are commissioned to spend 2 years filming this. There is enough there for all 6, and they flow into each other - unless the Countryfile web person was making it all up.
Why on earth didn't the Beeb agree to 6 films? They can make a bomb from Sir National Treasure, yet supposedly they're going to let the co-producers of the other 5 episodes bag the conclusion for themselves?
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"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."
A few years back, someone posted a link on here to an article about a small area of farmland near here (I think it was on the Fens) that has not been touched since the 1970s, as part of a project. My google-fu fails me, and I cannot find 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.
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.
get some pigs or sheep. They'll do it for you
I've been involved in doing the moth base-line surveys for what is Britain's smallest rewilding here in Devon. They have 4 cows and 2 Mangalitza - rather delightful Hungarian wooly pigs.
The nettles and brambles still get a foothold, though.
(How) do you manage the nettles and brambles?
Some patches are highly beneficial: brambles as a food-source to birds and mammals and home to some micro-moths, nettles as host to (for example) Peacock Butterfly larvae. But too much of good thing just leaves it impenetrable to most plants to grow through.
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.
You could just listen to the interview with Tanya Steel, CEO of WWF UK on the Today programme this morning (about 1 hour 50 mins in) where she explains that the 6th episode was made “long after” the other 5 commissioned by the charities not BBC and the bbc offered to host this 6th on the iPlayer.
She is asked if it was suppressed and says that it’s categorically untrue.
I don't think it's disputed that the original order was for five programmes and the sixth was added later. The BBC are asking us to believe that no editorial decision was made to include or not include it with the other five.
If they had said it was determined the sixth programme didn't fit in with the others and would be shown separately that would be a plausible explanation. It would also be a decision that people might disagree with.
If an extra program was made under a different contract structure, the rights for that would have to be be negotiated.
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"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."
Horses for courses really.
I always think you have to be pragmatic starting with humans are part of the natural environment.
There are two aspects to rewilding. One is the just leaves things alone approach where frankly little is required except to sit back and watch it happen. The second is where a landscape is changed or animals introduced.
Most landscape changes tend to be less controversial as it involves putting the land back to what it was eg coastal flooding. The animal introductions tend to be the more contoversial bits since some of the animals would frighten the crap out of the locals I can quite see us signing up to wolves and bears yet.
"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."
Did he refer to Albania? How about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria?
Albania is where many of those in the boats are coming from.
Does that mean that Gary thinks economic migrants can go fuck themselves?
I have no idea what Gary thinks about Albanians. I don't believe they should be coming here, but if Lineker does I defend his right to say so. However that wasn't the point of his post was it? You just introduced Albanians. He never mentioned them.
There are those who have a justifiable claim to stay here because of the persecution they face in their own country. (One can only speculate as to why they feel the need to travel through a large number of safe countries but insist on ploughing on over the waves to Blighty.)
There are those who have no justifiable claim but are simply seeking a better life for themselves/family than their own nation's government provide them with.
Those in the first group would be a manageable number, were it not for those in the second group who have broken the asylum seeker system.
Gary Lineker has great sympathy for those in the first group. He is not alone in that.However, he expresses no condemnation for those in the second group who have broken the system. As such, he fails to address the nature of the problem faced by Government. Not only are there no answers, there are no acknowledgements of the questions.
Hence his position is bollocks.
That was very well put. However I still defend Lineker's right to freedom of speech even it is as you put it bollocks.
It is a fact that the 6th episode is a conclusion to the previous 5 episodes (see the Countryfile screengrab)
You're assuming that's a fact, because you need it to prove what you want to prove.
I gather it's been corrected now.
Exactly. It has been corrected. They published what had been created and have had to amend it to what will be broadcast. You seem to be suggesting that the person writing the Countryfile page has made it up for nefarious purposes - they load what they are given.
Coming back to Clarkson, the one thing that seems to unite every farmer on the tellybox or in real life is the estimation of Countryfile as being hopelessly out of touch with reality and seeking to portray a fantasy idea of the countryside.
The British media are categorically useless at representing, understanding and explaining the countryside. It doesn’t come down to a party political issue: it’s been that way as long as I remember.
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"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."
A few years back, someone posted a link on here to an article about a small area of farmland near here (I think it was on the Fens) that has not been touched since the 1970s, as part of a project. My google-fu fails me, and I cannot find it.
Got it. Monks Wood. Silly me, not Wicken Fen. Should have thought of checking the experimental station first!
I know I'm an old lefty, but some of the comments that are being made about those poor souls who are trying to cross the Channel in small boats horrify me. And I felt the same when the Uganda nations came here.
I'm particularly horrified when people like Sunak and Patel fail to recognise that they could've been in a similar position had not many of us ignored the far right a few years ago and welcomed them into our country.
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"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."
A few years back, someone posted a link on here to an article about a small area of farmland near here (I think it was on the Fens) that has not been touched since the 1970s, as part of a project. My google-fu fails me, and I cannot find it.
I know I'm an old lefty, but some of the comments that are being made about those poor souls who are trying to cross the Channel in small boats horrify me. And I felt the same when the Uganda nations came here.
I'm particularly horrified when people like Sunak and Patel fail to recognise that they could've been in a similar position had not many of us ignored the far right a few years ago and welcomed them into our country.
I can barely recall that - too young really - but this does startle, especially after the debates we've been having this weekend. Complete with exporting to an island(s).
'The Foreign Office began to scour the remaining British possessions around the globe, from Bermuda to the Virgin Islands, for a "suitable island with enough space [...]" [...]
But the Solomon Islands were rejected as being "mostly mountains or swamp" and the islanders were reported as already holding "xenophobic tendencies".
Bermuda was reported as suffering a housing shortage. Job prospects were said to be too poor in the Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands. There was said to be "a strong local prejudice against East African Asians" in the Seychelles. British Honduras was prepared to take 25 families as long as they were agricult-uralists, while Hong Kong would only take some professionals.
Only the Falkland Islands gave a positive response, saying they would accept doctors, teachers, domestic servants and farm workers.'
A lot of the care is because they sit next to real farmland and communities who dont want wild boar or ragwort and also because they still have to follow Defra rules on tagging cattle for instance. But the book by Isabella Tree is worth a read if you havent already done so.
I went to a fascinating talk by her husband, Charles Burrell. The land is now significantly more productive (lucrative) than before the rewilding.
He's looking forward to reintroducing lynx...
Yes, well good luck with that ! I cant see his neighbours rejoicing at the prospect. On the other hand you like me probably get "sightings" of big cats in your area. Im sure there are some out there so it shows we can live with them.
Still agnostic on "big cats". There are thought fewer than 100 Florida Puma, but I still saw one as a roadkill. There have been no reports of big cat roadkill here, nor of being caught on photo traps (even though the mythical New Forest population of Pine Martins was proven by these cameras).
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.
Everyone should care about stopping the boats and drowning of adults and children
Only yesterday dozens drowned in the Mediterranean off Italy
Indeed Macron highlighted this issue as a European one and that the UK and Europe will cooperate on
Our family have lost loved ones at sea and in two cases their bodies were not recovered
There’s a reason traditional Guernsey jumpers were knitted with individual patterns unique to each fisherman - after a couple of days in the sea it’s often the only way a body is readily identifiable.
My wife says that all her aunts had their own patterns that they put into their 'gansey's for their husband's and they would have recognised their own work
My wife's father had 8 brothers all Lossiemouth fishermen, 2 sisters, and 2 died in infancy
And there was a reason for it. As it allowed the wives in olden days to identify if the washed up body was their husband / family or someone elses....
I know I'm an old lefty, but some of the comments that are being made about those poor souls who are trying to cross the Channel in small boats horrify me. And I felt the same when the Uganda nations came here.
I'm particularly horrified when people like Sunak and Patel fail to recognise that they could've been in a similar position had not many of us ignored the far right a few years ago and welcomed them into our country.
Political discourse in this country is depressing and has been for some time.
I wish we could have a rational discussion, e.g (a) it is a sensible objective to stop illegal and dangerous border crossings (b) that the country needs an immigration system that is rigorous, fair and consistent (c) that we need to do our fair bit to help those fleeing persecution overseas (d) that people fleeing persecution deserve to be welcomed and given the necessary resources to help them contribute to our society and (e) we need to listen to communities and work together to allow greater integration, collaboration and support, without this being either 1. Right wing reactionary racism or 2. Lefty liberal bleeding heart wokeness.
But then I’m a centrist at heart, probably, and maybe this is the cross I just have to bear!
I know I'm an old lefty, but some of the comments that are being made about those poor souls who are trying to cross the Channel in small boats horrify me. And I felt the same when the Uganda nations came here.
I'm particularly horrified when people like Sunak and Patel fail to recognise that they could've been in a similar position had not many of us ignored the far right a few years ago and welcomed them into our country.
Yes snd as foe Marquee Marks groups
I think there are 2 groups
1 People with empathy for other people in strife and worse off than themselves
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"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."
A few years back, someone posted a link on here to an article about a small area of farmland near here (I think it was on the Fens) that has not been touched since the 1970s, as part of a project. My google-fu fails me, and I cannot find it.
Was it when Sean doxed Tim!!
That's a rather bizarre comment! No, I think it was well afterwards.
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"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."
A few years back, someone posted a link on here to an article about a small area of farmland near here (I think it was on the Fens) that has not been touched since the 1970s, as part of a project. My google-fu fails me, and I cannot find it.
Was it when Sean doxed Tim!!
That's a rather bizarre comment! No, I think it was well afterwards.
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"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."
A few years back, someone posted a link on here to an article about a small area of farmland near here (I think it was on the Fens) that has not been touched since the 1970s, as part of a project. My google-fu fails me, and I cannot find it.
Got it. Monks Wood. Silly me, not Wicken Fen. Should have thought of checking the experimental station first!
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.
Everyone should care about stopping the boats and drowning of adults and children
Only yesterday dozens drowned in the Mediterranean off Italy
Indeed Macron highlighted this issue as a European one and that the UK and Europe will cooperate on
Our family have lost loved ones at sea and in two cases their bodies were not recovered
There’s a reason traditional Guernsey jumpers were knitted with individual patterns unique to each fisherman - after a couple of days in the sea it’s often the only way a body is readily identifiable.
My wife says that all her aunts had their own patterns that they put into their 'gansey's for their husband's and they would have recognised their own work
My wife's father had 8 brothers all Lossiemouth fishermen, 2 sisters, and 2 died in infancy
And there was a reason for it. As it allowed the wives in olden days to identify if the washed up body was their husband / family or someone elses....
Indeed but in two cases in our family their bodies were not found
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.
It adds a big portfolio of high growth companies and ~£100m to their bottom line.
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"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."
A few years back, someone posted a link on here to an article about a small area of farmland near here (I think it was on the Fens) that has not been touched since the 1970s, as part of a project. My google-fu fails me, and I cannot find it.
Not Wicken Fen?
(controversial comment) Wicken Fen is theme-park rewilding. An utterly managed landscape, designed to meet a certain mage of what 'wild' is. Then again, I don't think they even claim it is rewilding.
I know I'm an old lefty, but some of the comments that are being made about those poor souls who are trying to cross the Channel in small boats horrify me. And I felt the same when the Uganda nations came here.
I'm particularly horrified when people like Sunak and Patel fail to recognise that they could've been in a similar position had not many of us ignored the far right a few years ago and welcomed them into our country.
Political discourse in this country is depressing and has been for some time.
I wish we could have a rational discussion, e.g (a) it is a sensible objective to stop illegal and dangerous border crossings (b) that the country needs an immigration system that is rigorous, fair and consistent (c) that we need to do our fair bit to help those fleeing persecution overseas (d) that people fleeing persecution deserve to be welcomed and given the necessary resources to help them contribute to our society and (e) we need to listen to communities and work together to allow greater integration, collaboration and support, without this being either 1. Right wing reactionary racism or 2. Lefty liberal bleeding heart wokeness.
But then I’m a centrist at heart, probably, and maybe this is the cross I just have to bear!
My not-particularly-profound thoughts on this not-particulary-profound saga:
1. Gary Lineker is not unthinkingly partisan. By way of example, he was openly uneasy about Corbyn and his circle (though without 1930s Germany references in that case as I recall) at a time when Gary Neville was blithely tweeting 'Vote Labour'. Lineker was also perfectly happy to offer gracious congratulations to Boris Johnson for the election win in 2019. Lineker's critics should acknowledge that he is not speaking from a party-political point of view but a sincerely emotional one, even if they may disagree with his conclusions or think them to be in some way shallow or ill-thought-through.
2. The comparison to 1930s Germany is a silly one. The Home Secretary's 'othering' words are sadly very similar to those of most of her predecessors, notably David Blunkett. 'Slippery slope' arguments are perfectly valid but have little to do with the Nazis, who from the outset were completely frank about what they wanted to do and why. Godwin's law ought to apply here.
3. If the camera adds 10 pounds, we could say that Twitter removes several billion brain cells (double that if you are a KC probably). This whole affair has consisted of all sides rising to each other's bait again and again.
4. Linekar ought to be allowed to say silly things online if he wants to, within reason. His agreement with the BBC seems to have been ambiguous and open to interpretation, and that's the BBC's fault, not his. If comparisons to the Nazis are the red-line then so be it, but make it clear in the rules from now on.
5. The silliest thing of all about this (and perhaps what caused it to take off) is that it was run as the single biggest story for days. Is this the BBC (admirably) not wanting to hide its problems, or the media just talking to itself? By all means make it one of the headlines, but should it be ahead of Silicon Valley Bank, Xi Jinping's third term in office, or the resumption of Saudi-Iran diplomatic relations?
6. The Tory MPs who appear to have petitioned the BBC about this could well lose their seats soon and will probably all be presenting shows on TalkTV and GBNews by then anyway, so likely they have their own motivations.
7. Key question for the government itself is: did anyone from within the government contact the BBC and put pressure on them, either directly or in a 'deal with this' ambiguous way? If not Sunak himself has presumably not behaved improperly and very likely had one or two other things on his mind while all this was going on.
I know I'm an old lefty, but some of the comments that are being made about those poor souls who are trying to cross the Channel in small boats horrify me. And I felt the same when the Uganda nations came here.
I'm particularly horrified when people like Sunak and Patel fail to recognise that they could've been in a similar position had not many of us ignored the far right a few years ago and welcomed them into our country.
Political discourse in this country is depressing and has been for some time.
I wish we could have a rational discussion, e.g (a) it is a sensible objective to stop illegal and dangerous border crossings (b) that the country needs an immigration system that is rigorous, fair and consistent (c) that we need to do our fair bit to help those fleeing persecution overseas (d) that people fleeing persecution deserve to be welcomed and given the necessary resources to help them contribute to our society and (e) we need to listen to communities and work together to allow greater integration, collaboration and support, without this being either 1. Right wing reactionary racism or 2. Lefty liberal bleeding heart wokeness.
But then I’m a centrist at heart, probably, and maybe this is the cross I just have to bear!
I couldn't have put it better myself
Agree completely and maybe more centrist are needed to counter the right and left
I know I'm an old lefty, but some of the comments that are being made about those poor souls who are trying to cross the Channel in small boats horrify me. And I felt the same when the Uganda nations came here.
I'm particularly horrified when people like Sunak and Patel fail to recognise that they could've been in a similar position had not many of us ignored the far right a few years ago and welcomed them into our country.
Political discourse in this country is depressing and has been for some time.
I wish we could have a rational discussion, e.g (a) it is a sensible objective to stop illegal and dangerous border crossings (b) that the country needs an immigration system that is rigorous, fair and consistent (c) that we need to do our fair bit to help those fleeing persecution overseas (d) that people fleeing persecution deserve to be welcomed and given the necessary resources to help them contribute to our society and (e) we need to listen to communities and work together to allow greater integration, collaboration and support, without this being either 1. Right wing reactionary racism or 2. Lefty liberal bleeding heart wokeness.
But then I’m a centrist at heart, probably, and maybe this is the cross I just have to bear!
Raving loony centrists sadly tend to get blotted out. You have to pick a side these days. That's pretty easy for me but I do feel for those less naturally aligned one way or the other.
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.
Nick Palmer wrote: 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.
The previous Deltapoll was highlighted here as a clear sign of the tide turning (I think GIN said it was obvious that the shift back had begun and would continue till the election), but most of us thought it was either an outlier or a short-terms response to the "Sunak is doing something! about immigration" line. This too may be an outlier, and maybe Delta needs a bit of dampening or larger samples or something. But the polling consensus does seem settled around a 20-point lead for now, except for that Savanta poll with the lead down to 11. What do we bet that the next Savanta will show it up again?
Anabobazina wrote:
Indeed.
In the past few days, the PB Tories have variously claimed (VERDICT):
• It is the end of Gary Lineker's career (WRONG) • The public would prefer Match of the Day without pundits (WRONG) • The saga would serve only to keep the 'popular' Boats Policy in the news; and this would be advantageous for the government (RIGHT; WRONG) • Thanks to the Boats, the Tories had polling momentum and the gap would continue to narrow (WRONG) • The BBC would never back down and Lineker would be replaced by "someone on 10% of his salary" (WRONG)
Not a great week for the PB Torydamuses, all told.
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"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."
A few years back, someone posted a link on here to an article about a small area of farmland near here (I think it was on the Fens) that has not been touched since the 1970s, as part of a project. My google-fu fails me, and I cannot find it.
Not Wicken Fen?
(controversial comment) Wicken Fen is theme-park rewilding. An utterly managed landscape, designed to meet a certain mage of what 'wild' is. Then again, I don't think they even claim it is rewilding.
Probably impossible to be 100% hands off given the wider hydrology of the Fens and massive drainage generally. Coudl simply call it the equivalent of a botanic garden's rockery for mountain plants - maintaining a particular successional stage albeit with some intervention. (I may be wrong about WF - I'm much more familiar with the Somerset Levels. But I did get to see that prehistoric site near Peterborough c. 1990 and was impressed by the way theyt had to erect drainage barriers to try and maintain the water table. Flag Fen, I'm almost sure it was. )
Have to say the big winners out of this SVB saga are Sir John Vickers and George Osborne who pushed ring fencing through against Treasury resistance.
Without that SVB US would have been able to simply transfer UK depositor cash into it's failing operations in the US and the taxpayer would have been left holding the bag.
I know I'm an old lefty, but some of the comments that are being made about those poor souls who are trying to cross the Channel in small boats horrify me. And I felt the same when the Uganda nations came here.
I'm particularly horrified when people like Sunak and Patel fail to recognise that they could've been in a similar position had not many of us ignored the far right a few years ago and welcomed them into our country.
Political discourse in this country is depressing and has been for some time.
I wish we could have a rational discussion, e.g (a) it is a sensible objective to stop illegal and dangerous border crossings (b) that the country needs an immigration system that is rigorous, fair and consistent (c) that we need to do our fair bit to help those fleeing persecution overseas (d) that people fleeing persecution deserve to be welcomed and given the necessary resources to help them contribute to our society and (e) we need to listen to communities and work together to allow greater integration, collaboration and support, without this being either 1. Right wing reactionary racism or 2. Lefty liberal bleeding heart wokeness.
But then I’m a centrist at heart, probably, and maybe this is the cross I just have to bear!
No, I'm a leftist, and I agree with that. Clearly we can't have everyone, and we shouldn't refuse everyone. A good starting point is not to spend time making judgments, good or bad, about "all refugees". If you are persecuted, it's normal to seek to go somewhere else, preferably somewhere easy to reach (which is why countries like Jordan and Greece get so many). If you want a good life, it's normal to want to go somewhere prosperous, ideally somewhere where you speak the language and have good connections. Maybe you are somewhat persecuted (e.g. regarded with suspicion because of your ethnic group) and also want a good life? All of those are possible regardless of whether you're a saint or a criminal.
Recipient countries need to decide how much it would be genuinely useful to them to help (e.g. bringing in people to fill a shortage of carers) plus how many they feel able to bring in due to sympathy and goodwill towards victims of persecution. Having decided that, it comes down to practicalities. But none of it requires us to demonise (or sanctify) migrants. The reason Tories tend not to get much of a hearing is that they too readily slip into demonising mode, and ostentatiously calculating what will play in the Red Wall. Sunak is quite credible as a sensible fellow not given to nasty rhetoric. Braverman? Not so much.
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've recently been watching the philosophical discussions hosted by Bryan Magee on the BBC during the 70s and 80s (highly recommended by the way). During that time Magee was a Labour, and then later an SDP, MP. So are we saying he made no political utterances whilst being an MP? Clearly preposterous, so, again, what gives with the Lineker/impartiality thing?
I think the Tories and their stooges at the BBC over-reacted to Lineker's comments for a few reasons. First, he is a working class man who played and commentates on that most working class of sports, football - and do he is an oik who needs putting in his place. Second, as a working class man expressing solidarity with refugees he demonstrates the falsity of the Tory narrative that says only hand wringing Guardianistas eating quinoa in their Islington Town houses care about refugees, while every salt of the earth working class type wants them all deported. Lastly, Lineker has over 8mn Twitter followers and the Tories are terrified of anyone with influence who opposes them. Anyway, I'm glad it all blew up in their faces. Lineker represents much that is right and decent about this country, and they the exact opposite.
Yep, and the final little pinch of straw in the craw - he's wealthy. Lefty types should have the good grace to either be silent or impoverished.
I know I'm an old lefty, but some of the comments that are being made about those poor souls who are trying to cross the Channel in small boats horrify me. And I felt the same when the Uganda nations came here.
I'm particularly horrified when people like Sunak and Patel fail to recognise that they could've been in a similar position had not many of us ignored the far right a few years ago and welcomed them into our country.
Political discourse in this country is depressing and has been for some time.
I wish we could have a rational discussion, e.g (a) it is a sensible objective to stop illegal and dangerous border crossings (b) that the country needs an immigration system that is rigorous, fair and consistent (c) that we need to do our fair bit to help those fleeing persecution overseas (d) that people fleeing persecution deserve to be welcomed and given the necessary resources to help them contribute to our society and (e) we need to listen to communities and work together to allow greater integration, collaboration and support, without this being either 1. Right wing reactionary racism or 2. Lefty liberal bleeding heart wokeness.
But then I’m a centrist at heart, probably, and maybe this is the cross I just have to bear!
Raving loony centrists sadly tend to get blotted out. You have to pick a side these days. That's pretty easy for me but I do feel for those less naturally aligned one way or the other.
I like somethings of the left but utterly do not like the right so I do consider myself to be in or near the centre
So BBC will appoint an independent expert to look at Social Media Guidelines. Who do we think..... Jeremy Clarkson.... Nadine Dorries ????
Ideally so we all agree they are independent it should be someone from abroad who understands the power that media and broadcasting can have on bringing a nation together. Is Kim Jong-Un available?
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
Precisely. I have no idea whether rewilding is a good or bad idea (whatever that means) but it does seem that the term "rewilding" is at worst misleading as there is nothing wild about most of the rewilded areas in the UK and, as has been pointed out on here who know what they are talking about, for very good reason.
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
"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."
A few years back, someone posted a link on here to an article about a small area of farmland near here (I think it was on the Fens) that has not been touched since the 1970s, as part of a project. My google-fu fails me, and I cannot find it.
Not Wicken Fen?
(controversial comment) Wicken Fen is theme-park rewilding. An utterly managed landscape, designed to meet a certain mage of what 'wild' is. Then again, I don't think they even claim it is rewilding.
Probably impossible to be 100% hands off given the wider hydrology of the Fens and massive drainage generally. Coudl simply call it the equivalent of a botanic garden's rockery for mountain plants - maintaining a particular successional stage albeit with some intervention. (I may be wrong about WF - I'm much more familiar with the Somerset Levels. But I did get to see that prehistoric site near Peterborough c. 1990 and was impressed by the way theyt had to erect drainage barriers to try and maintain the water table. Flag Fen, I'm almost sure it was. )
Yep, Flag Fen. Must Farm (labelled as 'Brritain's Pompeii') was recently found near there: http://www.mustfarm.com/
The mother of one of my son's friends worked extensively with Francis Pryor's wife at Flag Fen and elsewhere.
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.
It is plausible that when the BBC saw the script for episode 6 it was deemed too political. So they rejigged the agreement and didn’t fund or plan to show the episode on TV. However there is a separate argument that there is merit in having the full suite available - the Director’s Cut - for those who want to seek it out.
Handled terribly by the BBC but I hope/think they'll survive and prosper for a long time yet. Far too much moaning about the 'broken model' of the LF imo. I can think of at least 100 things more broken than the BBC funding model to worry about.
The very mindset that has got the BBC to this point. Well done.
... "this point" being a high quality and vfm public service imo.
I know I'm an old lefty, but some of the comments that are being made about those poor souls who are trying to cross the Channel in small boats horrify me. And I felt the same when the Uganda nations came here.
I'm particularly horrified when people like Sunak and Patel fail to recognise that they could've been in a similar position had not many of us ignored the far right a few years ago and welcomed them into our country.
Political discourse in this country is depressing and has been for some time.
I wish we could have a rational discussion, e.g (a) it is a sensible objective to stop illegal and dangerous border crossings (b) that the country needs an immigration system that is rigorous, fair and consistent (c) that we need to do our fair bit to help those fleeing persecution overseas (d) that people fleeing persecution deserve to be welcomed and given the necessary resources to help them contribute to our society and (e) we need to listen to communities and work together to allow greater integration, collaboration and support, without this being either 1. Right wing reactionary racism or 2. Lefty liberal bleeding heart wokeness.
But then I’m a centrist at heart, probably, and maybe this is the cross I just have to bear! <
I know I'm an old lefty, but some of the comments that are being made about those poor souls who are trying to cross the Channel in small boats horrify me. And I felt the same when the Uganda nations came here.
I'm particularly horrified when people like Sunak and Patel fail to recognise that they could've been in a similar position had not many of us ignored the far right a few years ago and welcomed them into our country.
Political discourse in this country is depressing and has been for some time.
I wish we could have a rational discussion, e.g (a) it is a sensible objective to stop illegal and dangerous border crossings (b) that the country needs an immigration system that is rigorous, fair and consistent (c) that we need to do our fair bit to help those fleeing persecution overseas (d) that people fleeing persecution deserve to be welcomed and given the necessary resources to help them contribute to our society and (e) we need to listen to communities and work together to allow greater integration, collaboration and support, without this being either 1. Right wing reactionary racism or 2. Lefty liberal bleeding heart wokeness.
But then I’m a centrist at heart, probably, and maybe this is the cross I just have to bear!
Raving loony centrists sadly tend to get blotted out. You have to pick a side these days. That's pretty easy for me but I do feel for those less naturally aligned one way or the other.
I am a founder member of the Unitarian Fundamentalists - offering cups of tea to *everyone*. In a menacing manner.
I know I'm an old lefty, but some of the comments that are being made about those poor souls who are trying to cross the Channel in small boats horrify me. And I felt the same when the Uganda nations came here.
I'm particularly horrified when people like Sunak and Patel fail to recognise that they could've been in a similar position had not many of us ignored the far right a few years ago and welcomed them into our country.
Political discourse in this country is depressing and has been for some time.
I wish we could have a rational discussion, e.g (a) it is a sensible objective to stop illegal and dangerous border crossings (b) that the country needs an immigration system that is rigorous, fair and consistent (c) that we need to do our fair bit to help those fleeing persecution overseas (d) that people fleeing persecution deserve to be welcomed and given the necessary resources to help them contribute to our society and (e) we need to listen to communities and work together to allow greater integration, collaboration and support, without this being either 1. Right wing reactionary racism or 2. Lefty liberal bleeding heart wokeness.
But then I’m a centrist at heart, probably, and maybe this is the cross I just have to bear!
Raving loony centrists sadly tend to get blotted out. You have to pick a side these days. That's pretty easy for me but I do feel for those less naturally aligned one way or the other.
I like somethings of the left but utterly do not like the right so I do consider myself to be in or near the centre
A touch right of centre, BigG. Nothing too fruity though. Quite the opposite.
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.
The previous Deltapoll was highlighted here as a clear sign of the tide turning (I think GIN said it was obvious that the shift back had begun and would continue till the election), but most of us thought it was either an outlier or a short-terms response to the "Sunak is doing something! about immigration" line. This too may be an outlier, and maybe Delta needs a bit of dampening or larger samples or something. But the polling consensus does seem settled around a 20-point lead for now, except for that Savanta poll with the lead down to 11. What do we bet that the next Savanta will show it up again?
To answer your question, Savanta didn’t suddenly take a walk in the wild side but are very consistent in their polling actually. Their Labour % recently a sensible 44 or 45 ish, and gap before 12 was 15band 14.
By sensible I mean there is no way Labour will poll above 45% at next election, 43 maximum and 11% lead or just above is most likely general election result.
Handled terribly by the BBC but I hope/think they'll survive and prosper for a long time yet. Far too much moaning about the 'broken model' of the LF imo. I can think of at least 100 things more broken than the BBC funding model to worry about.
The very mindset that has got the BBC to this point. Well done.
... "this point" being a high quality and vfm public service imo.
Yeah but you're a rich Hampstead pinko. What is vfm for you might not be for the person on the Hartlepool omnibus. If indeed there is such a thing.
I know I'm an old lefty, but some of the comments that are being made about those poor souls who are trying to cross the Channel in small boats horrify me. And I felt the same when the Uganda nations came here.
I'm particularly horrified when people like Sunak and Patel fail to recognise that they could've been in a similar position had not many of us ignored the far right a few years ago and welcomed them into our country.
Political discourse in this country is depressing and has been for some time.
I wish we could have a rational discussion, e.g (a) it is a sensible objective to stop illegal and dangerous border crossings (b) that the country needs an immigration system that is rigorous, fair and consistent (c) that we need to do our fair bit to help those fleeing persecution overseas (d) that people fleeing persecution deserve to be welcomed and given the necessary resources to help them contribute to our society and (e) we need to listen to communities and work together to allow greater integration, collaboration and support, without this being either 1. Right wing reactionary racism or 2. Lefty liberal bleeding heart wokeness.
But then I’m a centrist at heart, probably, and maybe this is the cross I just have to bear!
No, I'm a leftist, and I agree with that. Clearly we can't have everyone, and we shouldn't refuse everyone. A good starting point is not to spend time making judgments, good or bad, about "all refugees". If you are persecuted, it's normal to seek to go somewhere else, preferably somewhere easy to reach (which is why countries like Jordan and Greece get so many). If you want a good life, it's normal to want to go somewhere prosperous, ideally somewhere where you speak the language and have good connections. Maybe you are somewhat persecuted (e.g. regarded with suspicion because of your ethnic group) and also want a good life? All of those are possible regardless of whether you're a saint or a criminal.
Recipient countries need to decide how much it would be genuinely useful to them to help (e.g. bringing in people to fill a shortage of carers) plus how many they feel able to bring in due to sympathy and goodwill towards victims of persecution. Having decided that, it comes down to practicalities. But none of it requires us to demonise (or sanctify) migrants. The reason Tories tend not to get much of a hearing is that they too readily slip into demonising mode, and ostentatiously calculating what will play in the Red Wall. Sunak is quite credible as a sensible fellow not given to nasty rhetoric. Braverman? Not so much.
The other thing which never gets mentioned is that it is rare that someone is 100% economic migrant or 100% political/religious/etc refugee.
My wife came over from Peru, when Shinning Path were murdering their way round the place. So part of her reason was Maoist surrealists, but also a chunk of the reason was to get a university degree in the U.K. and get a job here.
Political discourse in this country is depressing and has been for some time.
I wish we could have a rational discussion, e.g (a) it is a sensible objective to stop illegal and dangerous border crossings (b) that the country needs an immigration system that is rigorous, fair and consistent (c) that we need to do our fair bit to help those fleeing persecution overseas (d) that people fleeing persecution deserve to be welcomed and given the necessary resources to help them contribute to our society and (e) we need to listen to communities and work together to allow greater integration, collaboration and support, without this being either 1. Right wing reactionary racism or 2. Lefty liberal bleeding heart wokeness.
But then I’m a centrist at heart, probably, and maybe this is the cross I just have to bear!
Raving loony centrists sadly tend to get blotted out. You have to pick a side these days. That's pretty easy for me but I do feel for those less naturally aligned one way or the other.
I was just reflecting something similar to @numbertwelve (though I think I'm more on the left than they are).
TLDR; we need to accept more migrants to protect our own way of life, but to do so we need policies within UK that protect the poor who too often bear the brunt of migration.
A few thoughts: - Having listened carefully to the arguments, I think we do need to stop the boats. Not because people are dying, sad though that is, but because the boats are creating a deeply unfair imbalance in who can get to UK (those who can make the arduous and illegal journey, as opposed to those in most need). -There are 100 million displaced people around the world currently. I've had personal experience of what that means for e.g. Turkey (I was in Reyhanli soon after the start of the Syrian civil war, when pretty much overnight it became a 50% Syrian town). Whilst I have sympathy for the argument that it is culturally challenging to accept lots of migrants into UK, I can find no moral justification for why UK should be protected from this cultural upheaval but Turkey, Lebanon, Germany, Uganda etc. should have to bear it. Which leads me to conclude we need to find a way to accept a fair share of displaced people into our country. - @Pagan2 is someone on here whose poitical views I listen carefully to, even though we are at either sides of the left-right spectrum. I think Pagan is correct to say that if we continue down the path we are currently on, the logical outcome is fortress Britain (I think the film Children of Men is not far from what we can expect). I don't want to live in a world like that, and I don't want to bring my kids up into that world. Profoundly so. I think we have to make a choice as to whether we want the end result of global movement of people to be fortress Britain, or the painful compromises that come from taking many, many more migrants into UK. I don't think there is another option. - It is a morally and practically important fact that the UK is far more wealthy than most nations on earth. I'd argue a significant part of each of our wealth today is directly as a result of exploitative global trade arragements, particularly during the heiight of empire. But even if you dispute that, I find it very hard to make a moral case for why any of us should be prosperous and comfortable enought to e.g. heat our homes simply because of the accident of where we are born. - It is of course a very thorny political issue as to how we acknowledge the point I have just made, without forcing poorer people in UK to bear the brunt of the good intentions of richer people like me. Therefore the global issue bleeds into our national politics (and for me personally a deep lack of respect for those who are personally wealth and seek to avoid e.g. paying tax). We need to design UK policy to protect both those who are poorer here, and those who arrive on our shores. This isn't easy, but the alternative (fortress Britain) is, I believe, far worse.
Handled terribly by the BBC but I hope/think they'll survive and prosper for a long time yet. Far too much moaning about the 'broken model' of the LF imo. I can think of at least 100 things more broken than the BBC funding model to worry about.
The very mindset that has got the BBC to this point. Well done.
... "this point" being a high quality and vfm public service imo.
Yes, the BBC is high quality. I tune in and see "I can Hear your Voice" and think "that's high quality".
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.
"Daily Mail and government [,] genuinely believed"?????
Really? What evidence is there, that the DM and current HMG believe in ANYTHING, aside of course from their own self interest, narrowly defined?
Silly pointless post, I won’t even bother replying to it.
Comments
Handed a yellow card and changed to red on VAR
https://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/meet-mangalitsa-hairy-pig-thats-kobe-beef-pork/
The nettles and brambles still get a foothold, though.
Public opinion on black rights matter or indeed gay rights in the past was split as it is over refugees. So whats changed here?
“Appropriate regard for the BBC’s values” has been interpreted in a quite narrow and novel way by political appointees of the government.
It will be really hard to come back from this for the BBC, another example of the Johnson and post Johnson Conservative party being the least conservative government of my lifetime. Casually, frequently and repeatedly damaging our institutions chasing +2 or +3 poll rating bounces from Daily Mail headlines.
Less than 2 years to go and it shall be good riddance.
https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/support-us/join/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=2022autumnmem&gclsrc=aw.ds&msclkid=a95a3b129ca7167a048c5f1d92cfa538
Alternatively, after you have reached the End Of Goat Requirement, you introduce wolves.
I'm guessing not, from that generalization.
That was Roger.
I've unmangled the post now.
I gather it's been corrected now.
https://heartofenglandforest.org/
It has been a delight to watch the forest develop over the last 15 years. My other half helps out as a volunteer and they do lots of wildlife surveys ( bugs, birds, reptiles ). So if you fancy a moth survey up this way let me know and Ill provide some vittals.
It will mean not a jot if people are so fed up of them given their record in government that they are willing to vote for a change.
I.e give a party with some fresh faces a go at confronting the challenges, if they screw it up there’s no need to vote for them again in 4/5 years time.
This is going to be what costs the Tories the election. The fact that I think lots of people will be willing to give Labour a try, even if they don’t align fully with their sensibilities - things feel so dysfunctional under the Tories that it’s got to be worth a go trying some new ideas out.
Only yesterday dozens drowned in the Mediterranean off Italy
Indeed Macron highlighted this issue as a European one and that the UK and Europe will cooperate on
Our family have lost loved ones at sea and in two cases their bodies were not recovered
Ill send you contact details if you fancy a trip to the wilds of Warwickshire
She is asked if it was suppressed and says that it’s categorically untrue.
What is clear from Linekers tweet, just like all Guardianista he refers to the channel crosses as refugees, fleeing persecution - it’s all a UK refugee/Tory nasty party issue. But Contrast and compare with how the Tory’s designed the policy, and the Mail on Sunday front page editorial and Sunak at PMQs perfectly described it - not refugees, the invasion is illegal immigration and needs a clear immigration/tough border policy, that would also be vote winning dividing line between Tory and Labour.
The Tories and their friends are labelling absolutely everyone who comes across on a dingy a criminal, part of an invasion force - and insisting they should be detained as criminals, forfeit rights due to their actions.
Nobody needs to be told by Lineker the weakness of this Tory position rests on what have boat people actually done wrong to deserve this label and treatment, don’t need to be told by anyone labelling people who done no wrong, never been convicted of a crime as second class people and criminals, is exactly the same as 1930s, it’s patently obvious to us all, we don’t need this patronising.
And that wasn’t just Germany anyway, that’s LINEKER’S RACIST SPIN - but that 1930s thing was everywhere all at once is proper history.
And this is where you are wrong, is it a nasty Tory, or nasty Daily Mail who pushes for this policy because it puts Labour in a bad spot and wins votes? Or is this not what we should expect or even demand from politics, when we take sides in it?
Unless of course you are calling this not a politics at all, but a question of morality, moral lines which should not be crossed is government policy? Is that what you and Lineker really saying?
The anti Tory brigade on Twitter is right.
Must be.
https://knepp.co.uk/knepp-estate/
you can go on a safari ! if you wish.
A lot of the care is because they sit next to real farmland and communities who dont want wild boar or ragwort and also because they still have to follow Defra rules on tagging cattle for instance. But the book by Isabella Tree is worth a read if you havent already done so.
Edit: or, indeed, preventing browsing. It's been interesting seeing the rewilding and reforesting of Rum over the decades, from sheepwalk/deer hunt to something more primal. That relied on fencing off new mixed plantations for some years till they could stand having the deer in them.
The question becomes what is 'wild'? Do you just let the area grow with no intervention for decades (like an area in the Fens that has been fenced off with no human access), or do you actuvely manage the wilds? In which case, is it actually 'wild'?
And the moment you have medium-scale human interaction with it, it's not totally wild - paths and trails are corrected, toilets and car parks added. Then there are the species: some species are trendier than others, and flooding an area of land to create marshes can actively harm other species? Is it just promotion of the trendiest plants and animals?
I hope Starmer has some good ideas - he'll be facing exactly the same questions within a couple of years of winning an election.
The previous Deltapoll was highlighted here as a clear sign of the tide turning (I think GIN said it was obvious that the shift back had begun and would continue till the election), but most of us thought it was either an outlier or a short-terms response to the "Sunak is doing something! about immigration" line. This too may be an outlier, and maybe Delta needs a bit of dampening or larger samples or something. But the polling consensus does seem settled around a 20-point lead for now, except for that Savanta poll with the lead down to 11. What do we bet that the next Savanta will show it up again?
He's looking forward to reintroducing lynx...
My wife's father had 8 brothers all Lossiemouth fishermen, 2 sisters, and 2 died in infancy
As you say, if you interfere with any element of the land in question then it is manifestly not "wild". It is curated, just according to principles that are preferred by one set of people or another.
What it absolutely doesn't seem to be is @Richard_Tyndall's
"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."
Anyway, I'm glad it all blew up in their faces. Lineker represents much that is right and decent about this country, and they the exact opposite.
NOT IMPARTIAL
❌Gary Lineker criticising the Government
❌David Attenborough condemning environmental destruction
IMPARTIAL
✅Andrew Neil sharing hard-right views on Brexit and climate change
✅Alan Sugar telling people to vote for Boris Johnson
"A Year in the Life of an English Meadow"
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Year-Life-English-Meadow/dp/0711227225
Well worth a read IMO.(From memory, haven't read it in a few years and it's stuck in a box in my garage).
You really do seem paranoid about me. You really need to lighten up and be less grumpy.
Really? What evidence is there, that the DM and current HMG believe in ANYTHING, aside of course from their own self interest, narrowly defined?
If they had said it was determined the sixth programme didn't fit in with the others and would be shown separately that would be a plausible explanation. It would also be a decision that people might disagree with.
OK, so we're back to commissioning. Silverback Films are commissioned to spend 2 years filming this. There is enough there for all 6, and they flow into each other - unless the Countryfile web person was making it all up.
Why on earth didn't the Beeb agree to 6 films? They can make a bomb from Sir National Treasure, yet supposedly they're going to let the co-producers of the other 5 episodes bag the conclusion for themselves?
I always think you have to be pragmatic starting with humans are part of the natural environment.
There are two aspects to rewilding. One is the just leaves things alone approach where frankly little is required except to sit back and watch it happen. The second is where a landscape is changed or animals introduced.
Most landscape changes tend to be less controversial as it involves putting the land back to what it was eg coastal flooding. The animal introductions tend to be the more contoversial bits since some of the animals would frighten the crap out of the locals I can quite see us signing up to wolves and bears yet.
Gary Lineker just tweeted
Rumour is that CRUELLA BRAVERMAN tripped over in her jack boots and nearly lost her iron cross when she heard the news I was back.
NB adjacent to existing wildwood.
https://catalogue.ceh.ac.uk/documents/c20e77f7-6143-49fe-acb4-a1e7fee112c7
I'm particularly horrified when people like Sunak and Patel fail to recognise that they could've been in a similar position had not many of us ignored the far right a few years ago and welcomed them into our country.
'The Foreign Office began to scour the remaining British possessions around the globe, from Bermuda to the Virgin Islands, for a "suitable island with enough space [...]"
[...]
But the Solomon Islands were rejected as being "mostly mountains or swamp" and the islanders were reported as already holding "xenophobic tendencies".
Bermuda was reported as suffering a housing shortage. Job prospects were said to be too poor in the Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands. There was said to be "a strong local prejudice against East African Asians" in the Seychelles. British Honduras was prepared to take 25 families as long as they were agricult-uralists, while Hong Kong would only take some professionals.
Only the Falkland Islands gave a positive response, saying they would accept doctors, teachers, domestic servants and farm workers.'
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jan/01/past.politics
I wish we could have a rational discussion, e.g (a) it is a sensible objective to stop illegal and dangerous border crossings (b) that the country needs an immigration system that is rigorous, fair and consistent (c) that we need to do our fair bit to help those fleeing persecution overseas (d) that people fleeing persecution deserve to be welcomed and given the necessary resources to help them contribute to our society and (e) we need to listen to communities and work together to allow greater integration, collaboration and support, without this being either 1. Right wing reactionary racism or 2. Lefty liberal bleeding heart wokeness.
But then I’m a centrist at heart, probably, and maybe this is the cross I just have to bear!
I think there are 2 groups
1 People with empathy for other people in strife and worse off than themselves
2. Thatcherites
Probably got it wrong
Wicken Fen is theme-park rewilding. An utterly managed landscape, designed to meet a certain mage of what 'wild' is. Then again, I don't think they even claim it is rewilding.
Well done Jeremy Hunt
@Jeremy_Hunt
·
5h
This morning, the Government and the Bank of England facilitated a private sale of Silicon Valley Bank UK to HSBC
Deposits will be protected, with no taxpayer support
I said yesterday that we would look after our tech sector, and we have worked urgently to deliver that promise
1. Gary Lineker is not unthinkingly partisan. By way of example, he was openly uneasy about Corbyn and his circle (though without 1930s Germany references in that case as I recall) at a time when Gary Neville was blithely tweeting 'Vote Labour'. Lineker was also perfectly happy to offer gracious congratulations to Boris Johnson for the election win in 2019. Lineker's critics should acknowledge that he is not speaking from a party-political point of view but a sincerely emotional one, even if they may disagree with his conclusions or think them to be in some way shallow or ill-thought-through.
2. The comparison to 1930s Germany is a silly one. The Home Secretary's 'othering' words are sadly very similar to those of most of her predecessors, notably David Blunkett. 'Slippery slope' arguments are perfectly valid but have little to do with the Nazis, who from the outset were completely frank about what they wanted to do and why. Godwin's law ought to apply here.
3. If the camera adds 10 pounds, we could say that Twitter removes several billion brain cells (double that if you are a KC probably). This whole affair has consisted of all sides rising to each other's bait again and again.
4. Linekar ought to be allowed to say silly things online if he wants to, within reason. His agreement with the BBC seems to have been ambiguous and open to interpretation, and that's the BBC's fault, not his. If comparisons to the Nazis are the red-line then so be it, but make it clear in the rules from now on.
5. The silliest thing of all about this (and perhaps what caused it to take off) is that it was run as the single biggest story for days. Is this the BBC (admirably) not wanting to hide its problems, or the media just talking to itself? By all means make it one of the headlines, but should it be ahead of Silicon Valley Bank, Xi Jinping's third term in office, or the resumption of Saudi-Iran diplomatic relations?
6. The Tory MPs who appear to have petitioned the BBC about this could well lose their seats soon and will probably all be presenting shows on TalkTV and GBNews by then anyway, so likely they have their own motivations.
7. Key question for the government itself is: did anyone from within the government contact the BBC and put pressure on them, either directly or in a 'deal with this' ambiguous way? If not Sunak himself has presumably not behaved improperly and very likely had one or two other things on his mind while all this was going on.
Agree completely and maybe more centrist are needed to counter the right and left
Anabobazina wrote:
Indeed.
In the past few days, the PB Tories have variously claimed (VERDICT):
• It is the end of Gary Lineker's career (WRONG)
• The public would prefer Match of the Day without pundits (WRONG)
• The saga would serve only to keep the 'popular' Boats Policy in the news; and this would be advantageous for the government (RIGHT; WRONG)
• Thanks to the Boats, the Tories had polling momentum and the gap would continue to narrow (WRONG)
• The BBC would never back down and Lineker would be replaced by "someone on 10% of his salary" (WRONG)
Not a great week for the PB Torydamuses, all told.
Without that SVB US would have been able to simply transfer UK depositor cash into it's failing operations in the US and the taxpayer would have been left holding the bag.
Recipient countries need to decide how much it would be genuinely useful to them to help (e.g. bringing in people to fill a shortage of carers) plus how many they feel able to bring in due to sympathy and goodwill towards victims of persecution. Having decided that, it comes down to practicalities. But none of it requires us to demonise (or sanctify) migrants. The reason Tories tend not to get much of a hearing is that they too readily slip into demonising mode, and ostentatiously calculating what will play in the Red Wall. Sunak is quite credible as a sensible fellow not given to nasty rhetoric. Braverman? Not so much.
http://www.mustfarm.com/
The mother of one of my son's friends worked extensively with Francis Pryor's wife at Flag Fen and elsewhere.
To answer your question, Savanta didn’t suddenly take a walk in the wild side but are very consistent in their polling actually. Their Labour % recently a sensible 44 or 45 ish, and gap before 12 was 15band 14.
By sensible I mean there is no way Labour will poll above 45% at next election, 43 maximum and 11% lead or just above is most likely general election result.
My wife came over from Peru, when Shinning Path were murdering their way round the place. So part of her reason was Maoist surrealists, but also a chunk of the reason was to get a university degree in the U.K. and get a job here.
TLDR; we need to accept more migrants to protect our own way of life, but to do so we need policies within UK that protect the poor who too often bear the brunt of migration.
A few thoughts:
- Having listened carefully to the arguments, I think we do need to stop the boats. Not because people are dying, sad though that is, but because the boats are creating a deeply unfair imbalance in who can get to UK (those who can make the arduous and illegal journey, as opposed to those in most need).
-There are 100 million displaced people around the world currently. I've had personal experience of what that means for e.g. Turkey (I was in Reyhanli soon after the start of the Syrian civil war, when pretty much overnight it became a 50% Syrian town). Whilst I have sympathy for the argument that it is culturally challenging to accept lots of migrants into UK, I can find no moral justification for why UK should be protected from this cultural upheaval but Turkey, Lebanon, Germany, Uganda etc. should have to bear it. Which leads me to conclude we need to find a way to accept a fair share of displaced people into our country.
- @Pagan2 is someone on here whose poitical views I listen carefully to, even though we are at either sides of the left-right spectrum. I think Pagan is correct to say that if we continue down the path we are currently on, the logical outcome is fortress Britain (I think the film Children of Men is not far from what we can expect). I don't want to live in a world like that, and I don't want to bring my kids up into that world. Profoundly so. I think we have to make a choice as to whether we want the end result of global movement of people to be fortress Britain, or the painful compromises that come from taking many, many more migrants into UK. I don't think there is another option.
- It is a morally and practically important fact that the UK is far more wealthy than most nations on earth. I'd argue a significant part of each of our wealth today is directly as a result of exploitative global trade arragements, particularly during the heiight of empire. But even if you dispute that, I find it very hard to make a moral case for why any of us should be prosperous and comfortable enought to e.g. heat our homes simply because of the accident of where we are born.
- It is of course a very thorny political issue as to how we acknowledge the point I have just made, without forcing poorer people in UK to bear the brunt of the good intentions of richer people like me. Therefore the global issue bleeds into our national politics (and for me personally a deep lack of respect for those who are personally wealth and seek to avoid e.g. paying tax). We need to design UK policy to protect both those who are poorer here, and those who arrive on our shores. This isn't easy, but the alternative (fortress Britain) is, I believe, far worse.
Making sense. No bailout. Investors to lose their money. Depositors protected.