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.
Indeed.
It is why I was rather confident since Friday I wasn't worried about SVB UK.
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
Surely if you find it great value you should be equally happy to pay a BBC subscription? I certainly would.
The problem is the BBC cannot fund everything it’s supposed to do with what’s likely going to be reduced funding .
Regional news and local radio amongst other areas.
If a subscription model causes reduced funding then you're admitting that at the moment people are being charged for content they don't want.
I only watch a few things on the BBC , my usage goes up and down , so during Wimbledon and the Olympics and other big sporting events I watch all day . I watch Newsnight and the BBC News Channel . The odd documentary and some things on BBC4 . I’m happy to pay the license fee and see it as for the greater good to protect the vast range of things the BBC offers .
Having seen the tripe that masquerades as state broadcasters in other countries we are lucky to have the BBC .
The BBC does some things well (although a lot of content is actually produced by outside companies and broadcast by the BBC - is it a BBC programme?
However, one of the arguments about the BBC is that it has no adverts and is thus 'better'. Arguably it does have adverts - for itself, frequently. I'd argue some of the other main UK channels are doing things as well as the BBC. In recent time C5 has been showing fantastic content, akin to the kind of programmes I'd expect on BBC2 or BBC4. It feels like 'my' channel right now, far more than BBC1 say or BBC2. Yes there are adverts. So what.
I would subscribe to the BBC is the licence fee became a subscription. And if they did that the presenters etc would be free to speak whatever truths they liked (abiding by the laws of the land of course...) The current setup suits no-one.
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
Surely if you find it great value you should be equally happy to pay a BBC subscription? I certainly would.
The problem is the BBC cannot fund everything it’s supposed to do with what’s likely going to be reduced funding .
Regional news and local radio amongst other areas.
If a subscription model causes reduced funding then you're admitting that at the moment people are being charged for content they don't want.
I only watch a few things on the BBC , my usage goes up and down , so during Wimbledon and the Olympics and other big sporting events I watch all day . I watch Newsnight and the BBC News Channel . The odd documentary and some things on BBC4 . I’m happy to pay the license fee and see it as for the greater good to protect the vast range of things the BBC offers .
Having seen the tripe that masquerades as state broadcasters in other countries we are lucky to have the BBC .
The BBC does some things well (although a lot of content is actually produced by outside companies and broadcast by the BBC - is it a BBC programme?
However, one of the arguments about the BBC is that it has no adverts and is thus 'better'. Arguably it does have adverts - for itself, frequently. I'd argue some of the other main UK channels are doing things as well as the BBC. In recent time C5 has been showing fantastic content, akin to the kind of programmes I'd expect on BBC2 or BBC4. It feels like 'my' channel right now, far more than BBC1 say or BBC2. Yes there are adverts. So what.
I would subscribe to the BBC is the licence fee became a subscription. And if they did that the presenters etc would be free to speak whatever truths they liked (abiding by the laws of the land of course...) The current setup suits no-one.
I don't agree with your last statement, precisely because of the sentence you wrote before.
However hard it currently seems to achieve this, I think we should still hold out for an impartial news organisation (I agree the BBC is much bigger than this). If a subscription model meant that presenters etc are free to speak whatever truths they liked, I think we'd lose a huge amount.
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)
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
Its a bit of an urban myth that bodies recovered at sea would be identified by the gansey patterns. There is no recorded incident of it happening, although there are stories of people recognising work (not on dead bodies).
Making sense. No bailout. Investors to lose their money. Depositors protected.
That’s capitalism?
Yup - Victorian style central bank work.
- Bank takes a dive - Bank of England used to call all the Good Chaps in for port and cigars. - The Good Chaps would take on the remains of the dead bank - Huzzah!
The one bit that has changed is that the CEO of the dead bank doesn't either
1) shoot himself 2) run away to Paris to die in poverty 3) escape in his private yacht to be murdered by whalers off the coast of Norway.
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
Its a bit of an urban myth that bodies recovered at sea would be identified by the gansey patterns. There is no recorded incident of it happening, although there are stories of people recognising work (not on dead bodies).
Making sense. No bailout. Investors to lose their money. Depositors protected.
That’s capitalism?
Yup - Victorian style central bank work.
- Bank takes a dive - Bank of England used to call all the Good Chaps in for port and cigars. - The Good Chaps would take on the remains of the dead bank - Huzzah!
The one bit that has changed is that the CEO of the dead bank doesn't either
1) shoot himself 2) run away to Paris to die in poverty 3) escape in his private yacht to be murdered by whalers off the coast of Norway.
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.
"Yeah but you're a ..." can of course prefix any opinion offered by anybody on anything. I don't suppose any public service is judged to be good vfm by everybody in the country. You know how some people are. No government spending at all is vfm apart from on tanks and soldiers. But I'd have thought the Beeb scores ok in public esteem relatively speaking.
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: < Interesting detail snipped >
I agree with a lot of that but I'd add the caveat that Britain is far from being self-sufficient in food, so there's a question mark over whether it makes sense to increase the population further, it's considerably cheaper to help people nearer to their point of origin than here, and we choose a very bad time to cut the International Aid budget, when the best hope for reducing the flows of desperate people around the world is to help improve the countries where they already live so that they are safe and appealing places to build a life in.
Making sense. No bailout. Investors to lose their money. Depositors protected.
That’s capitalism?
Yup - Victorian style central bank work.
- Bank takes a dive - Bank of England used to call all the Good Chaps in for port and cigars. - The Good Chaps would take on the remains of the dead bank - Huzzah!
The one bit that has changed is that the CEO of the dead bank doesn't either
1) shoot himself 2) run away to Paris to die in poverty 3) escape in his private yacht to be murdered by whalers off the coast of Norway.
I had a cigar at lunchtime.
My reward for calling this SVB UK fallout correctly.
The BBC Question Time presenter, Fiona Bruce, said she would step back from her role as an ambassador for the charity Refuge after claims she had trivialised domestic violence during a discussion about Stanley Johnson on last Thursday’s show.
Making sense. No bailout. Investors to lose their money. Depositors protected.
That’s capitalism?
Yup - Victorian style central bank work.
- Bank takes a dive - Bank of England used to call all the Good Chaps in for port and cigars. - The Good Chaps would take on the remains of the dead bank - Huzzah!
The one bit that has changed is that the CEO of the dead bank doesn't either
1) shoot himself 2) run away to Paris to die in poverty 3) escape in his private yacht to be murdered by whalers off the coast of Norway.
Would that be any port in a banking storm?
It’s how you cachalot, as Peter Carey might of said…
Those BBC negotiations in full: “Delete the tweets” “No” “Okay, well, apologise for them” “No” “We’ll get somebody else in to do your job if you don’t” *Everyone downs tools* “Will you at least promise not to tweet political stuff in the future?” “No” “Okay, we have a deal”
Fiona Bruce read French at Hertford College, Oxford.
Taking whimsical jokes about the French and Oxford University too far so as to label a real person ghastly solely on the basis of the subject and awarding institution for their degree, perhaps?
Fiona Bruce read French at Hertford College, Oxford.
Taking whimsical jokes about the French and Oxford University too far so as to label a real person ghastly solely on the basis of the subject and awarding institution for their degree, perhaps?
She downplayed domestic violence, she's a ghastly person.
Fiona Bruce read French at Hertford College, Oxford.
Taking whimsical jokes about the French and Oxford University too far so as to label a real person ghastly solely on the basis of the subject and awarding institution for their degree, perhaps?
She downplayed domestic violence, she's a ghastly person.
And you trivialise that by criticizing her for having a degree in French from Oxford.
Making sense. No bailout. Investors to lose their money. Depositors protected.
That’s capitalism?
Yup - Victorian style central bank work.
- Bank takes a dive - Bank of England used to call all the Good Chaps in for port and cigars. - The Good Chaps would take on the remains of the dead bank - Huzzah!
The one bit that has changed is that the CEO of the dead bank doesn't either
1) shoot himself 2) run away to Paris to die in poverty 3) escape in his private yacht to be murdered by whalers off the coast of Norway.
I had a cigar at lunchtime.
My reward for calling this SVB UK fallout correctly.
Your reward for calling the SVB UK fallout correctly was to poison yourself?
Those BBC negotiations in full: “Delete the tweets” “No” “Okay, well, apologise for them” “No” “We’ll get somebody else in to do your job if you don’t” *Everyone downs tools* “Will you at least promise not to tweet political stuff in the future?” “No” “Okay, we have a deal”
Arf. Was the indomitable @SquareRoot2 chief negotiator?
Making sense. No bailout. Investors to lose their money. Depositors protected.
That’s capitalism?
Yup - Victorian style central bank work.
- Bank takes a dive - Bank of England used to call all the Good Chaps in for port and cigars. - The Good Chaps would take on the remains of the dead bank - Huzzah!
The one bit that has changed is that the CEO of the dead bank doesn't either
1) shoot himself 2) run away to Paris to die in poverty 3) escape in his private yacht to be murdered by whalers off the coast of Norway.
I had a cigar at lunchtime.
My reward for calling this SVB UK fallout correctly.
Your reward for calling the SVB UK fallout correctly was to poison yourself?
Good job you didn't call it wrong.
I smoke one cigar like once every 6 months.
Since the start of the pandemic this is my second cigar.
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.
Indeed.
It is why I was rather confident since Friday I wasn't worried about SVB UK.
It is a pretty good remedy. The only problem is that we have now even more consolidation of our banking sector.
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
Its a bit of an urban myth that bodies recovered at sea would be identified by the gansey patterns. There is no recorded incident of it happening, although there are stories of people recognising work (not on dead bodies).
Given that the stories I've heard were from residents of the Shetlands - urban myth isn't quite correct.
This is a good site to ask questions about Ukraine policy, because so many knowledgeable people are here all over every angle of it.
Firstly, is UK government operating a clear policy objective and a clear goal on/for Ukraine? Are we and allies clearly seeing a policy for Ukraine victory, giving them enough for an outright win? Or are we only giving them enough to survive a bit longer and never win? If we are just dragging this out, it is precisely what Vladimir Putin wants, it’s how he eventually gets his way isn’t it?
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: < Interesting detail snipped >
I agree with a lot of that but I'd add the caveat that Britain is far from being self-sufficient in food, so there's a question mark over whether it makes sense to increase the population further, it's considerably cheaper to help people nearer to their point of origin than here, and we choose a very bad time to cut the International Aid budget, when the best hope for reducing the flows of desperate people around the world is to help improve the countries where they already live so that they are safe and appealing places to build a life in.
Yeah, I agree with that, not least because it helps to preserve and protect the countries in question, which is valuable in itself. I would support a significant ramping up of the aid budget in place of taking lots more refugees.
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
Surely if you find it great value you should be equally happy to pay a BBC subscription? I certainly would.
The problem is the BBC cannot fund everything it’s supposed to do with what’s likely going to be reduced funding .
Regional news and local radio amongst other areas.
If a subscription model causes reduced funding then you're admitting that at the moment people are being charged for content they don't want.
I only watch a few things on the BBC , my usage goes up and down , so during Wimbledon and the Olympics and other big sporting events I watch all day . I watch Newsnight and the BBC News Channel . The odd documentary and some things on BBC4 . I’m happy to pay the license fee and see it as for the greater good to protect the vast range of things the BBC offers .
Having seen the tripe that masquerades as state broadcasters in other countries we are lucky to have the BBC .
The BBC does some things well (although a lot of content is actually produced by outside companies and broadcast by the BBC - is it a BBC programme?
However, one of the arguments about the BBC is that it has no adverts and is thus 'better'. Arguably it does have adverts - for itself, frequently. I'd argue some of the other main UK channels are doing things as well as the BBC. In recent time C5 has been showing fantastic content, akin to the kind of programmes I'd expect on BBC2 or BBC4. It feels like 'my' channel right now, far more than BBC1 say or BBC2. Yes there are adverts. So what.
I would subscribe to the BBC is the licence fee became a subscription. And if they did that the presenters etc would be free to speak whatever truths they liked (abiding by the laws of the land of course...) The current setup suits no-one.
I don't agree with your last statement, precisely because of the sentence you wrote before.
However hard it currently seems to achieve this, I think we should still hold out for an impartial news organisation (I agree the BBC is much bigger than this). If a subscription model meant that presenters etc are free to speak whatever truths they liked, I think we'd lose a huge amount.
There is a gap created here for Labour, if they are serious about governing for the long term good of the country, to lay out a series of proposals for the BBC that will make it more fit for the current era.
- Changes to top level governance on impartiality, including new rules on how the DG, chair and other figures are hired and scrutinised - Rules regulating certain types of interference by politicians in editorial matters, for example by requiring all correspondence between ministers and BBC staff to be published - A replacement of the licence fee with a subscription model which would also remove the ridiculous restriction on Brits watching iPlayer from abroad. - Direct taxpayer funding in a few areas where the BBC performs a public service role such as PPBs, government safety messages, schools programming, foreign language broadcasting such as BBC Persian etc
The Beeb has one of the most powerful media brands in the world. It's up there with Disney, and arguably ahead of Fox, CNN, Netflix or Amazon prime. With a bit of a nudge it could really start coining it while retaining a clearly defined and restricted public service role.
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.
"Yeah but you're a ..." can of course prefix any opinion offered by anybody on anything. I don't suppose any public service is judged to be good vfm by everybody in the country. You know how some people are. No government spending at all is vfm apart from on tanks and soldiers. But I'd have thought the Beeb scores ok in public esteem relatively speaking.
You'd have thought that, would you.
So not vfm after all it turns out, but "ok" in public esteem. Be still my beating heart.
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.
A very good and considered post and I agree with the broad thrust of it (it is true I would say I am historically more on the centre right than centre left).
Your point on supporting poorer people particularly chimes with me. This is something that a lot of the sound and fury of the debate conveniently leaves out - on the right because it means spending money, on the left because it is easier to infer bad intentions from someone raising genuine concerns.
Indeed I would say one of the greatest faults of the 2010-2015 government was dismantling a number of local community services ostensibly on cost efficiency grounds whereas what would have been better would have been to look at what was being delivered and how it could be better used to achieve ambitions such as these, without being too constrained by government control once established. This was particularly unfortunate given Cameron’s (I believe genuine) views around the big society - a widely mocked concept but one that had the right underpinnings to it.
On advertising on national TV: From time to time, I watch Japan's NHK World. Long ago, I quipped to a friend that you could say that it has no ads -- or that it is all* ads. By that I meant that most of its stories could be considered ads for Japan. Is something similar be true of the BBC, though perhaps to a lesser extent?
(*There are straight news stories on NHK World, including weather and stock reports, but I ignored them for the sake of the quip. And they do occasionally have good stories -- on other nations.)
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."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
So what now happens to the Mince Tory MPs who just days ago were demanding a formal investigation into the Outrage of that man besmirching the British People with his tweet?
Will they let it lie?
Of course they wont, theyll rumble discontentedly until the next flare up and Lineker will provide it as he thinks he's fire proof. The situation is unsustainable.
I do not expect Lineker and MOD will exist in the same format once contracts are up for renewal
Sports coverage is moving on
I agree the BBC sports management have been humiliated. They need to rebuild a department where they run the show and that will mean new formats and dropping lots of the current payroll.
What this whole episode has done is focus attention back on Johnson appointing his mates and financial fixers to run the BBC. Everything the buffoon touches turns to dust. I expect Sunak understands this and that is why is support for the Chairman was underwhelming.
1. I have no time for Boris' BBC appointments if in any way they were linked to an improvement in his own finances.
2. However, if those appointments should now resign, the BBC will be friendless with Government for at least the next 18 months.
3. Either way, the Licence Fee will come under what must surely be terminal scrutiny. The BBC is circling the plug hole - and even any incoming Labour government will not be able to change the media environment in which it operates. It has been overtaken by competitors and technology.
4. BBC management have shown themselves to be generally unfit for purpose. A new funding structure will require root and branch review.
The issue of the BBC could turn into a big issue at the election . The BBC is part of our culture and has been there for all those shared major moments in history since its inception .
If the license review ends up looking like an attempt to destroy it by the Tories that could backfire .
Personally I’m happy to the pay the license fee. Overall it’s great value .
Surely if you find it great value you should be equally happy to pay a BBC subscription? I certainly would.
The problem is the BBC cannot fund everything it’s supposed to do with what’s likely going to be reduced funding .
Regional news and local radio amongst other areas.
If a subscription model causes reduced funding then you're admitting that at the moment people are being charged for content they don't want.
I only watch a few things on the BBC , my usage goes up and down , so during Wimbledon and the Olympics and other big sporting events I watch all day . I watch Newsnight and the BBC News Channel . The odd documentary and some things on BBC4 . I’m happy to pay the license fee and see it as for the greater good to protect the vast range of things the BBC offers .
Having seen the tripe that masquerades as state broadcasters in other countries we are lucky to have the BBC .
The BBC does some things well (although a lot of content is actually produced by outside companies and broadcast by the BBC - is it a BBC programme?
However, one of the arguments about the BBC is that it has no adverts and is thus 'better'. Arguably it does have adverts - for itself, frequently. I'd argue some of the other main UK channels are doing things as well as the BBC. In recent time C5 has been showing fantastic content, akin to the kind of programmes I'd expect on BBC2 or BBC4. It feels like 'my' channel right now, far more than BBC1 say or BBC2. Yes there are adverts. So what.
I would subscribe to the BBC is the licence fee became a subscription. And if they did that the presenters etc would be free to speak whatever truths they liked (abiding by the laws of the land of course...) The current setup suits no-one.
I don't agree with your last statement, precisely because of the sentence you wrote before.
However hard it currently seems to achieve this, I think we should still hold out for an impartial news organisation (I agree the BBC is much bigger than this). If a subscription model meant that presenters etc are free to speak whatever truths they liked, I think we'd lose a huge amount.
There is a gap created here for Labour, if they are serious about governing for the long term good of the country, to lay out a series of proposals for the BBC that will make it more fit for the current era.
- Changes to top level governance on impartiality, including new rules on how the DG, chair and other figures are hired and scrutinised - Rules regulating certain types of interference by politicians in editorial matters, for example by requiring all correspondence between ministers and BBC staff to be published - A replacement of the licence fee with a subscription model which would also remove the ridiculous restriction on Brits watching iPlayer from abroad. - Direct taxpayer funding in a few areas where the BBC performs a public service role such as PPBs, government safety messages, schools programming, foreign language broadcasting such as BBC Persian etc
The Beeb has one of the most powerful media brands in the world. It's up there with Disney, and arguably ahead of Fox, CNN, Netflix or Amazon prime. With a bit of a nudge it could really start coining it while retaining a clearly defined and restricted public service role.
I think I could get on board with that if you included news in the taxpayer funded public service role. (Attempted) impartial news is what I think we need to hold onto.
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.
A very good and considered post and I agree with the broad thrust of it (it is true I would say I am historically more on the centre right than centre left).
Your point on supporting poorer people particularly chimes with me. This is something that a lot of the sound and fury of the debate conveniently leaves out - on the right because it means spending money, on the left because it is easier to infer bad intentions from someone raising genuine concerns.
Indeed I would say one of the greatest faults of the 2010-2015 government was dismantling a number of local community services ostensibly on cost efficiency grounds whereas what would have been better would have been to look at what was being delivered and how it could be better used to achieve ambitions such as these, without being too constrained by government control once established. This was particularly unfortunate given Cameron’s (I believe genuine) views around the big society - a widely mocked concept but one that had the right underpinnings to it.
Yep - talking about the Big Society while cutting off everything that could support it (Surestart, libraries even) wasn't a good plan.
Actually I'd make "The public would prefer Match of the Day without pundits (WRONG)" more nuanced. Clear issues on saturday without commentary at all (unfair on the blind). But actually would a highlights programme with just highlights and the odd interview be that bad? I'm no longer convinced that pro's who have been out of the game for 20 years know the modern sport. There are better analysts, and most seem to write for the Athletic.
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.
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.
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
Its a bit of an urban myth that bodies recovered at sea would be identified by the gansey patterns. There is no recorded incident of it happening, although there are stories of people recognising work (not on dead bodies).
Given that the stories I've heard were from residents of the Shetlands - urban myth isn't quite correct.
I think 'urban' is not being used in the context of town/city in the phrase 'urban legend/myth'.
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."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
Interesting. Diversity is great of course. In the animal and human kingdoms and for sure it's great to have rare species around. But I'm not sure what the real impact or benefit is. Like a bigger zoo, perhaps, analagous to somewhere people can go and pay to visit giraffes or rhinos.
Plus this doesn't fill me with confidence:
"Nattergal's aim is to drive biodiversity recovery "by focused investment into rewilding degraded ecosystems". It will generate revenue from the sales of carbon credits, as well as via "biodiversity net gain" payments by housebuilders and ecotourism, among others. Boothby is Nattergal's first investment, but it hopes to purchase more suitable farms in due course."
I'm sure ecotourism is vital for any rewilded area.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
Nah - he'll be gone when the premier league accept a suitable replacement...
I always thought he'd stand down in 2024 after the Euros.
The world cup in 2026 is going to be a huge logistical challenge which will require multiple presenters.
The BBC use multiple presenters all the time - I suspect, however, that for 2026 the early rounds will have a centralized main presenters location - nothing else makes sense given the sheer distances involved.
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."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
It might be if your land was covered with rhododendrons. But that is pretty extreme!
Indeed. Most of the projects I have been involved with have been either lowland chalk/limestone or river valley reshaping - undoing the canalisation of former centuries. The most common way of rewilding as part of the widespread Wild East project is just leaving the hell alone and letting nature take its course.
But that risks acres of brambles, nettles and docks. With the odd hawthorn for a decade or two.
But MM you know first hand from our joint interest that those plants are just as vital, or more vital, than many of the 'prettier' flowers that people think of as flower meadow. And it doesn't persist like that. Things rebalance.
Yes if you are trying to re-introduce chalkland flower meadow then you might control the 'thugs' usually by hand weeding them out. But actually if you look at the established meadows they are self maintaining.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
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."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
+1 - the current landscape of the Dales, Moors and Lakes is because sheep farming not in spite of it.
If sheep weren't there things would rapidly look very different.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
We were all wondering when @Leon's latest incarnation would appear.
Just that I hadn't expected him to possess an existing poster.
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.
Thistle is not illegal. Ragwort is because of its effect on horses but it is also a hugely important food plant for insects.
2 - That he comes across as a very strong entrant (bra none) for the most-gormless champion, giving his public the full benefit of his unthought through opinions. That's been a habit for a long time (I think I can recall a Lineker caused mini-stooshie in 2014 or so).
3 - He can't go for "but it's a strictly personal account which is nothing to do with the BBC", since the BBC affiliation has only been removed very recently.
4 - Throwing Hitler comparisons around?
The David Attenborough angle afaics seems to be manufactured.
Yes, the Govt are wise to keep quiet. I think in general the BBC have been too mild on these, especially for example when Chris Packham went on the radio inciting criminal damage to be committed on construction sites.
The idea of industrial action by real journalists is an intriguing one. I know the NUJ is idiosyncratic, but really - in defence of Lineker?
Park Lineker and look at the "Attenborough Angle" for a moment.
This is Sir National Treasure's final series (likely) and they have made 6 episodes. Beeb have decided not to show the 6th episode, the politically uncomfortable for the Tories one.
Supposedly they only commissioned 5. Yet 6 were made. Supposedly they don't own the 6th one. Yet have bought it as its going on iPlayer.
So they have a man they have used as the face of documentary making as a global figure. Making his final series. They won't broadcast a 6th show which they have bought. And claim they didn't commission him to make it and don't want it despite having bought it and put it on iPlayer.
Its manufactured alright.
Given all that has done is encourage people to watch the sixth episode I struggle to see the reasoning.
Yes, I know that the people making such decisions might have different thought processes to normal people.
Anyway, how politically embarrassing could it possible be ? Some stuff about pollution being bad or climate change being dangerous or biodiversity being at risk ? Well we've heard such things many, many times over the decades and the reality is the UK is likely in the greenest, most environmentally friendly condition its been for centuries.
Reportedly the sixth episode will showcase done positive examples of rewilding.
For some reason rewilding has become a trigger word for some of those on the Right. So I guess it's something that shouldn't be politically embarrassing at all, but there are enough people on the Right willing to kick up a fuss that the BBC is pre-emptively running scared.
That said the sixth episode is a bit weird. It was originally commissioned by a couple of environmental charities and not the BBC. So it's a bit like an advertorial that the BBC have decided to buy.
Rewilding is a bonkers thing in practice. I have a cousin who is putting a few hundred acres over to rewilding and the processes to go through involve just about razing whatever is there to the ground, planting specific species and then using a set of pesticides, etc that have been determined to be "allowed".
It is very, very far from just leaving everything alone and seeing what happens and whether wolves appear or not.
I have been involved in a number of rewilding projects over the years and no, what you describe is not the process at all.
It might be if your land was covered with rhododendrons. But that is pretty extreme!
Indeed. Most of the projects I have been involved with have been either lowland chalk/limestone or river valley reshaping - undoing the canalisation of former centuries. The most common way of rewilding as part of the widespread Wild East project is just leaving the hell alone and letting nature take its course.
But that risks acres of brambles, nettles and docks. With the odd hawthorn for a decade or two.
But MM you know first hand from our joint interest that those plants are just as vital, or more vital, than many of the 'prettier' flowers that people think of as flower meadow. And it doesn't persist like that. Things rebalance.
Yes if you are trying to re-introduce chalkland flower meadow then you might control the 'thugs' usually by hand weeding them out. But actually if you look at the established meadows they are self maintaining.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
We were all wondering when @Leon's latest incarnation would appear.
Just that I hadn't expected him to possess an existing poster.
I am not possessed so far as I am aware but of course false consciousness cannot be ruled out. I just think that I am bored to tears with this story. BBC stories about the BBC are always exceptionally tedious but jeez, this is a whole new level.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
Is your local the Carlton Club?
Doubtful, as the "poll" result there would likely be the reverse; not because of sympathy for Lineker, but rather due to contempt for the No-Brains Trust that is (still) running the Tory Party . . . into the ground.
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."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
Interesting. Diversity is great of course. In the animal and human kingdoms and for sure it's great to have rare species around. But I'm not sure what the real impact or benefit is. Like a bigger zoo, perhaps, analagous to somewhere people can go and pay to visit giraffes or rhinos.
Plus this doesn't fill me with confidence:
"Nattergal's aim is to drive biodiversity recovery "by focused investment into rewilding degraded ecosystems". It will generate revenue from the sales of carbon credits, as well as via "biodiversity net gain" payments by housebuilders and ecotourism, among others. Boothby is Nattergal's first investment, but it hopes to purchase more suitable farms in due course."
I'm sure ecotourism is vital for any rewilded area.
Depends on how it is done. I am actually signed up as a volunteer at Boothby so will let you know how it develops.
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)
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
I'm genuinely shocked that you think that David. I respect your contributions a lot, even though we disagree on a fair bit, but what could you possibly find to dislike about:
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. We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people. Thank you. ?
It seems to me to be self-deprecating, that Lineker's spat with the BBC / Government is a minor inconvenience compared to the plight of many in the world, and that Britain is a tolerant country.
So what now happens to the Mince Tory MPs who just days ago were demanding a formal investigation into the Outrage of that man besmirching the British People with his tweet?
Will they let it lie?
Of course they wont, theyll rumble discontentedly until the next flare up and Lineker will provide it as he thinks he's fire proof. The situation is unsustainable.
I do not expect Lineker and MOD will exist in the same format once contracts are up for renewal
Sports coverage is moving on
I agree the BBC sports management have been humiliated. They need to rebuild a department where they run the show and that will mean new formats and dropping lots of the current payroll.
What this whole episode has done is focus attention back on Johnson appointing his mates and financial fixers to run the BBC. Everything the buffoon touches turns to dust. I expect Sunak understands this and that is why is support for the Chairman was underwhelming.
Quite right. Rishi must know that when the Sharp and the Cash-for-Boris row gets properly going the public outrage will be immense - probably hitting 80% - to extent that public will be demanding Gary Lineker be appointed BBC chairman.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
We were all wondering when @Leon's latest incarnation would appear.
Just that I hadn't expected him to possess an existing poster.
I am not possessed so far as I am aware but of course false consciousness cannot be ruled out. I just think that I am bored to tears with this story. BBC stories about the BBC are always exceptionally tedious but jeez, this is a whole new level.
Just like the Daily Mail, the BBC is only covering stories that the public are interested in and are prepared to pay for and it knows will generate revenue.
Who says that the BBC's revenue model will need amending, eh?
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.
"Yeah but you're a ..." can of course prefix any opinion offered by anybody on anything. I don't suppose any public service is judged to be good vfm by everybody in the country. You know how some people are. No government spending at all is vfm apart from on tanks and soldiers. But I'd have thought the Beeb scores ok in public esteem relatively speaking.
You'd have thought that, would you.
So not vfm after all it turns out, but "ok" in public esteem. Be still my beating heart.
What I mean, TOPPING, is if you draw up a league table of areas of public spend by perceived vfm the Beeb will be nearer the top than the bottom. Hyufd will have the polling to support or refute this, I imagine. Maybe best to park it till he pops in.
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."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
As I said these large scale schemes are the exception rather than the rule. They have been very successful at Knepp but have their opponents as well as their supporters in the rewilding fraternity. There is not one 'right' way to do stuff.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
I'm genuinely shocked that you think that David. I respect your contributions a lot, even though we disagree on a fair bit, but what could you possibly find to dislike about:
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. We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people. Thank you. ?
It seems to me to be self-deprecating, that Lineker's spat with the BBC / Government is a minor inconvenience compared to the plight of many in the world, and that Britain is a tolerant country.
Who could disagree with any ot that?
Personally speaking I found it a little self righteous in the context of what was taking place, but I don’t have an issue with him saying it if he wants to, and nothing to dispute in the content.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
We were all wondering when @Leon's latest incarnation would appear.
Just that I hadn't expected him to possess an existing poster.
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.
"Yeah but you're a ..." can of course prefix any opinion offered by anybody on anything. I don't suppose any public service is judged to be good vfm by everybody in the country. You know how some people are. No government spending at all is vfm apart from on tanks and soldiers. But I'd have thought the Beeb scores ok in public esteem relatively speaking.
You'd have thought that, would you.
So not vfm after all it turns out, but "ok" in public esteem. Be still my beating heart.
What I mean, TOPPING, is if you draw up a league table of areas of public spend by perceived vfm the Beeb will be nearer the top than the bottom. Hyufd will have the polling to support or refute this, I imagine. Maybe best to park it till he pops in.
Yes if I were you I'd park it pronto. Perhaps in the car park at the Spaniards.
So the reason SVP didn't have higher capital buffers was because it was below the threshold for being a Systematically Important Bank. SVB had an asset threshold of $209bn and the threshold was $250bn. This is because Trump deregulated banks in 2018, and upped the threshold from Obama's $50bn.
Meanwhile Ron DeSantis is blaming the failure on SVB being "too woke".
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
Its a bit of an urban myth that bodies recovered at sea would be identified by the gansey patterns. There is no recorded incident of it happening, although there are stories of people recognising work (not on dead bodies).
Given that the stories I've heard were from residents of the Shetlands - urban myth isn't quite correct.
I think 'urban' is not being used in the context of town/city in the phrase 'urban legend/myth'.
The fact that no one was actually recognised from their jersey doesn't stop people from making jerseys which would make that possible. It's a bit like prayer!
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."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
As I said these large scale schemes are the exception rather than the rule. They have been very successful at Knepp but have their opponents as well as their supporters in the rewilding fraternity. There is not one 'right' way to do stuff.
I liked one comment in an article about it (I'm now an expert btw, obvs): “The risk is you end up rebadging all these conventional nature conservation activities as rewilding in the hope that people take an interest. We need to avoid being sucked into that.”
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
How much is a pint in The Everyman Arms these days?
I’m not sure I’ve ever conducted or been subject to a straw poll on a political issue while down the pub. And whenever politics has come up as a pub topic the points of view of people almost never fall neatly into pro or anti.
This is a good site to ask questions about Ukraine policy, because so many knowledgeable people are here all over every angle of it.
Firstly, is UK government operating a clear policy objective and a clear goal on/for Ukraine? Are we and allies clearly seeing a policy for Ukraine victory, giving them enough for an outright win? Or are we only giving them enough to survive a bit longer and never win? If we are just dragging this out, it is precisely what Vladimir Putin wants, it’s how he eventually gets his way isn’t it?
"This fatal compromise, which even Churchill felt forced to pursue in the hope of an opportunity to strengthen Allied policy into full-blooded intervention, simply protracted the agony." - Antony Beevor, "Russia - Revolution and Civil War 1917-1921" (2022).
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."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
As I said these large scale schemes are the exception rather than the rule. They have been very successful at Knepp but have their opponents as well as their supporters in the rewilding fraternity. There is not one 'right' way to do stuff.
I liked one comment in an article about it (I'm now an expert btw, obvs): “The risk is you end up rebadging all these conventional nature conservation activities as rewilding in the hope that people take an interest. We need to avoid being sucked into that.”
It’s on the same spectrum as regenerative agriculture. New fashionable word for a well established good thing.
To bring things back authentically to the premodern state we should consider reintroducing some scattered groups of Palaeolithic style hunter gatherers. Something some youngsters might fancy as part of a gap year.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
I thought his "final thought" today would have been the final straw for me. A simple aggravation of the original dispute, quite gratuitously insulting and humiliating his employers. His contract needs to be terminated as soon as legally possible. Enough.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
It was not Gary Lineker who humiliated/embarrassed his "employers". THEY did it to themselves, with major assist (apparently, certainly in public perception) by HMG and Tory Party.
Find it interesting that what passes for top "management" of BBC claimed at the time GL's contract was renegotiated, that he was tightly constrained re: social media postings.
Which turns out was clearly NOT the case? Seems that the relevant press release was, like 99.46% of the genre, spin rather than substance.
BTW, wonder how much pressure that government minions put on the Beeb-meisters? Both to squelch Lineker, AND to un-squelch him when it became obvious that the squelching was a HUGE political blunder?
Admitted NOT in order of magnitude of, say, imperiling the Good Friday Agreement, or tanking the Pound Sterling, but bad enough for govt work.
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."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
As I said these large scale schemes are the exception rather than the rule. They have been very successful at Knepp but have their opponents as well as their supporters in the rewilding fraternity. There is not one 'right' way to do stuff.
I liked one comment in an article about it (I'm now an expert btw, obvs): “The risk is you end up rebadging all these conventional nature conservation activities as rewilding in the hope that people take an interest. We need to avoid being sucked into that.”
On rewilding, I sometimes wonder what species is intended to be the apex predator?
On bank concentration - is the UK banking sector actually highly concentrated?
Are there international metrics for this?
Probably - but the biggest problem is that the end result of the cozy chats is you are left with a few dominate players who have survived (and profited from) the disasters that befell others.
Worth saying that the US do still have a large number of small regional / state / community banks but that opens up a whole different sent of issues were their higher costs need to be covered / protected by other rules to ensure they can survive.
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."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
As I said these large scale schemes are the exception rather than the rule. They have been very successful at Knepp but have their opponents as well as their supporters in the rewilding fraternity. There is not one 'right' way to do stuff.
I liked one comment in an article about it (I'm now an expert btw, obvs): “The risk is you end up rebadging all these conventional nature conservation activities as rewilding in the hope that people take an interest. We need to avoid being sucked into that.”
On rewilding, I sometimes wonder what species is intended to be the apex predator?
So the reason SVP didn't have higher capital buffers was because it was below the threshold for being a Systematically Important Bank. SVB had an asset threshold of $209bn and the threshold was $250bn. This is because Trump deregulated banks in 2018, and upped the threshold from Obama's $50bn.
Meanwhile Ron DeSantis is blaming the failure on SVB being "too woke".
And when you have 15-20 of these pretty sizeable non SIBs it becomes a pretty big fucking problem. As we're now finding out.
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."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
As I said these large scale schemes are the exception rather than the rule. They have been very successful at Knepp but have their opponents as well as their supporters in the rewilding fraternity. There is not one 'right' way to do stuff.
I liked one comment in an article about it (I'm now an expert btw, obvs): “The risk is you end up rebadging all these conventional nature conservation activities as rewilding in the hope that people take an interest. We need to avoid being sucked into that.”
It’s on the same spectrum as regenerative agriculture. New fashionable word for a well established good thing.
To bring things back authentically to the premodern state we should consider reintroducing some scattered groups of Palaeolithic style hunter gatherers. Something some youngsters might fancy as part of a gap year.
Fine - as long as we reinstate sabre-toothed tiger.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
Tory majority nailed on too I guess? Who need Yougov.
Not at all.
That is the interesting thing.
I'd say 8 of those 10 are not Tories. At all.
Local farming types. All thought Clarkson would do a better job.
For avoidance of doubt, I didn't instigate or get involved in the conversation.
Sympathy for well paid selebs is very low indeed.
...although not for Clarkson apparently.
O/T I am just reading Selling Hitler by Robert Harris and it made me think of you as I believe your business is rare manuscripts etc.
The Hitler diaries fiasco was clearly (according to Harris) a monumental series of mistakes and missed opportunities but it did make me think authentication and the risk of forgeries must be a big headache for you.
Selling Hitler is a fascinating read.
(PS I don't doubt your pub poll for one moment. If I asked our bookclub the same poll I bet it would be 8-0 in favour of Lineker. Different groups, neither representative though.)
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."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
As I said these large scale schemes are the exception rather than the rule. They have been very successful at Knepp but have their opponents as well as their supporters in the rewilding fraternity. There is not one 'right' way to do stuff.
I liked one comment in an article about it (I'm now an expert btw, obvs): “The risk is you end up rebadging all these conventional nature conservation activities as rewilding in the hope that people take an interest. We need to avoid being sucked into that.”
I first heard of rewilding in the context of challenging existing conservation practices that involve a high level of management and intervention in the landscape, and maintaining artificially high levels of grazing animals.
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."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
"are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them"
A side-note here, if I may. Railway lines are known to be fairly biologically diverse, as railways were good ways of transporting seeds from around the country or world, are linear (allowing small animals to move without disturbance) and are relatively undisturbed, even whilst in use. Once railways were closed and nature restarted, non-native species were often found - especially of small plants (large shrubs and trees being a negative in ye olde steam days).
(This has been an issue for several preservation schemes.)
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."
The rule that most of the rewilding organisations large and small seem to be taking - and the one I think makes most sense - is to do the minimum to return to the pre-human state of the land. In some cases this can be quite substantial, most commonly with the un-straightening of rivers as this slows the flow back to what it once was, allows for flooding and has a massive effect on both plants and animals without any need for re-introductions or further interference.
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
And I like this bit:
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
As I said these large scale schemes are the exception rather than the rule. They have been very successful at Knepp but have their opponents as well as their supporters in the rewilding fraternity. There is not one 'right' way to do stuff.
I liked one comment in an article about it (I'm now an expert btw, obvs): “The risk is you end up rebadging all these conventional nature conservation activities as rewilding in the hope that people take an interest. We need to avoid being sucked into that.”
It’s on the same spectrum as regenerative agriculture. New fashionable word for a well established good thing.
To bring things back authentically to the premodern state we should consider reintroducing some scattered groups of Palaeolithic style hunter gatherers. Something some youngsters might fancy as part of a gap year.
Fine - as long as we reinstate sabre-toothed tiger.
Didn't have them in the postglacial era AFAIK, including the Mesolithic.
Comments
It is why I was rather confident since Friday I wasn't worried about SVB UK.
However, one of the arguments about the BBC is that it has no adverts and is thus 'better'. Arguably it does have adverts - for itself, frequently. I'd argue some of the other main UK channels are doing things as well as the BBC. In recent time C5 has been showing fantastic content, akin to the kind of programmes I'd expect on BBC2 or BBC4. It feels like 'my' channel right now, far more than BBC1 say or BBC2. Yes there are adverts. So what.
I would subscribe to the BBC is the licence fee became a subscription. And if they did that the presenters etc would be free to speak whatever truths they liked (abiding by the laws of the land of course...) The current setup suits no-one.
However hard it currently seems to achieve this, I think we should still hold out for an impartial news organisation (I agree the BBC is much bigger than this). If a subscription model meant that presenters etc are free to speak whatever truths they liked, I think we'd lose a huge amount.
* In the 18-24 age group. On 6%. Tied with the Tories.
- Bank takes a dive
- Bank of England used to call all the Good Chaps in for port and cigars.
- The Good Chaps would take on the remains of the dead bank
- Huzzah!
The one bit that has changed is that the CEO of the dead bank doesn't either
1) shoot himself
2) run away to Paris to die in poverty
3) escape in his private yacht to be murdered by whalers off the coast of Norway.
My reward for calling this SVB UK fallout correctly.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/13/fiona-bruce-to-step-down-as-refuge-ambassador-over-stanley-johnson-comments
Fiona Bruce read French at Hertford College, Oxford.
Those BBC negotiations in full:
“Delete the tweets”
“No”
“Okay, well, apologise for them”
“No”
“We’ll get somebody else in to do your job if you don’t”
*Everyone downs tools*
“Will you at least promise not to tweet political stuff in the future?”
“No”
“Okay, we have a deal”
I expect Fiona Bruce would have compounded it correctly...
Good job you didn't call it wrong.
Do not ruin my day of jubilee.
Arf. Was the indomitable @SquareRoot2 chief negotiator?
Since the start of the pandemic this is my second cigar.
Firstly, is UK government operating a clear policy objective and a clear goal on/for Ukraine? Are we and allies clearly seeing a policy for Ukraine victory, giving them enough for an outright win? Or are we only giving them enough to survive a bit longer and never win?
If we are just dragging this out, it is precisely what Vladimir Putin wants, it’s how he eventually gets his way isn’t it?
- Changes to top level governance on impartiality, including new rules on how the DG, chair and other figures are hired and scrutinised
- Rules regulating certain types of interference by politicians in editorial matters, for example by requiring all correspondence between ministers and BBC staff to be published
- A replacement of the licence fee with a subscription model which would also remove the ridiculous restriction on Brits watching iPlayer from abroad.
- Direct taxpayer funding in a few areas where the BBC performs a public service role such as PPBs, government safety messages, schools programming, foreign language broadcasting such as BBC Persian etc
The Beeb has one of the most powerful media brands in the world. It's up there with Disney, and arguably ahead of Fox, CNN, Netflix or Amazon prime. With a bit of a nudge it could really start coining it while retaining a clearly defined and restricted public service role.
So not vfm after all it turns out, but "ok" in public esteem. Be still my beating heart.
Your point on supporting poorer people particularly chimes with me. This is something that a lot of the sound and fury of the debate conveniently leaves out - on the right because it means spending money, on the left because it is easier to infer bad intentions from someone raising genuine concerns.
Indeed I would say one of the greatest faults of the 2010-2015 government was dismantling a number of local community services ostensibly on cost efficiency grounds whereas what would have been better would have been to look at what was being delivered and how it could be better used to achieve ambitions such as these, without being too constrained by government control once established. This was particularly unfortunate given Cameron’s (I believe genuine) views around the big society - a widely mocked concept but one that had the right underpinnings to it.
(*There are straight news stories on NHK World, including weather and stock reports, but I ignored them for the sake of the quip. And they do occasionally have good stories -- on other nations.)
But most of the small and medium scale projects - and even some of the larger ones - are simply as I said. Leave the land alone and let it recolonise naturally. Some of the very best wildlife habitats in the East Midlands (and I assume elsewhere) are the old abandoned railway cuttings which have had nothing done to them (until Sustrans started turning them into cycle paths) and which have become havens for plants and insects that had been struggling to survive in the modern landscape. There is a reason why one of the greatest areas of natural diversity and rare species in England is Salisbury Plain. Apart from occasionally blowing up bits of it, the military leave it alone and allow nature to take its course.
There are reintroduction schemes - most notably the Knepp estate in Sussex. They have also now just bought 1500 acres of low grade farmland a few miles south of where I live which will be their second big project. But these are very much the exception rather than the rule.
9-1 anti vs pro Lineker last night in our local.
He may have won the twitter battle, but he's lost the everyman war.
He'll be gone from the BBC within the year I reckon.
No mass outpouring of support for Lineker there, that I could see.
The world cup in 2026 is going to be a huge logistical challenge which will require multiple presenters.
Actually I'd make "The public would prefer Match of the Day without pundits (WRONG)" more nuanced. Clear issues on saturday without commentary at all (unfair on the blind). But actually would a highlights programme with just highlights and the odd interview be that bad? I'm no longer convinced that pro's who have been out of the game for 20 years know the modern sport. There are better analysts, and most seem to write for the Athletic.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1635275810327379975
Time to tap out
Plus this doesn't fill me with confidence:
"Nattergal's aim is to drive biodiversity recovery "by focused investment into rewilding degraded ecosystems". It will generate revenue from the sales of carbon credits, as well as via "biodiversity net gain" payments by housebuilders and ecotourism, among others. Boothby is Nattergal's first investment, but it hopes to purchase more suitable farms in due course."
I'm sure ecotourism is vital for any rewilded area.
Alternatively, just maybe you drink with like-minded people and your pub poll is unrepresentative?
Per twitter, US regional bank trading halted due to volatility (the downwards kind).
"Free-roaming livestock, such as cattle and horses, will be introduced to graze the land."
Er, what?
Yes if you are trying to re-introduce chalkland flower meadow then you might control the 'thugs' usually by hand weeding them out. But actually if you look at the established meadows they are self maintaining.
And, for the avoidance of doubt I would feel that way about any presenter who embarrassed his or her employers in that way, left or right.
If sheep weren't there things would rapidly look very different.
Just that I hadn't expected him to possess an existing poster.
The INVESTORS are the capitalists here, that is, people who invest their (or somebody's) capital.
Not.
Obviously Pesto hasn’t been able to read a thread on Twitter. Or PB….
I just think that I am bored to tears with this story. BBC stories about the BBC are always exceptionally tedious but jeez, this is a whole new level.
Doubtful, as the "poll" result there would likely be the reverse; not because of sympathy for Lineker, but rather due to contempt for the No-Brains Trust that is (still) running the Tory Party . . . into the ground.
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. We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people. Thank you. ?
It seems to me to be self-deprecating, that Lineker's spat with the BBC / Government is a minor inconvenience compared to the plight of many in the world, and that Britain is a tolerant country.
Who could disagree with any ot that?
Who says that the BBC's revenue model will need amending, eh?
Are there international metrics for this?
That is the interesting thing.
I'd say 8 of those 10 are not Tories. At all.
Local farming types. All thought Clarkson would do a better job.
For avoidance of doubt, I didn't instigate or get involved in the conversation.
Sympathy for well paid selebs is very low indeed.
Meanwhile Ron DeSantis is blaming the failure on SVB being "too woke".
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/mar/13/rishi-sunak-defence-spending-uk-us-australia-aukus-summit-joe-biden-anthony-albanese-keir-starmer-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-640f160f8f080fff7c2bce15#block-640f160f8f080fff7c2bce15
It's a bit like prayer!
“The risk is you end up rebadging all these conventional nature conservation activities as rewilding in the hope that people take an interest. We need to avoid being sucked into that.”
To bring things back authentically to the premodern state we should consider reintroducing some scattered groups of Palaeolithic style hunter gatherers. Something some youngsters might fancy as part of a gap year.
Find it interesting that what passes for top "management" of BBC claimed at the time GL's contract was renegotiated, that he was tightly constrained re: social media postings.
Which turns out was clearly NOT the case? Seems that the relevant press release was, like 99.46% of the genre, spin rather than substance.
BTW, wonder how much pressure that government minions put on the Beeb-meisters? Both to squelch Lineker, AND to un-squelch him when it became obvious that the squelching was a HUGE political blunder?
Admitted NOT in order of magnitude of, say, imperiling the Good Friday Agreement, or tanking the Pound Sterling, but bad enough for govt work.
47/39 against
https://news.sky.com/story/snp-leadership-scottish-independence-support-at-just-39-poll-says-12832783
https://mobile.twitter.com/CSkidmoreUK/status/1635279592629075973
I am not prepared to break international law or the human rights conventions that the UK has had a proud history of playing a leading role in establishing.
I will not be voting for the bill tonight.
Worth saying that the US do still have a large number of small regional / state / community banks but that opens up a whole different sent of issues were their higher costs need to be covered / protected by other rules to ensure they can survive.
O/T I am just reading Selling Hitler by Robert Harris and it made me think of you as I believe your business is rare manuscripts etc.
The Hitler diaries fiasco was clearly (according to Harris) a monumental series of mistakes and missed opportunities but it did make me think authentication and the risk of forgeries must be a big headache for you.
Selling Hitler is a fascinating read.
(PS I don't doubt your pub poll for one moment. If I asked our bookclub the same poll I bet it would be 8-0 in favour of Lineker. Different groups, neither representative though.)
Would be a shame if the distinction was lost.
A side-note here, if I may. Railway lines are known to be fairly biologically diverse, as railways were good ways of transporting seeds from around the country or world, are linear (allowing small animals to move without disturbance) and are relatively undisturbed, even whilst in use. Once railways were closed and nature restarted, non-native species were often found - especially of small plants (large shrubs and trees being a negative in ye olde steam days).
(This has been an issue for several preservation schemes.)