Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
The whole thing is very odd since Scobie denied naming them, and it is hard to see how they could be named in translation if not in the original English text.
Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
It's all over twitter. I'm not a royalist but I don't think it is racist to speculate on what colour a baby is likely to be, or its sex. A none story.
@trussliz Conservative leadership and the Anglo-American alliance are vital. I'm in Washington DC with @MPIainDS, @JackLopresti, Mark Francois and Lord Howard for talks with Republican counterparts.
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
She has already commented the cuts to Newsnight mean that interview could never be repeated
Calling BS....BBC have managed to do things like Schofield interview without it having to be Newsnight. Amol Rajan has got to do numerous serious sit down interviews over the past few years. Martin Bashir also did them through Panorama if I remember correctly.
They are a multi-billion quid organisation, if there is really a story and need research / interview they have the resources to do it. They still do multi-year investigations like the ones they do with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The reality is Newsnight gets very few scoops these days and politicians don't exactly rush to go on the programme.
Pretty big expose of whistleblowing and cover up in the Sussex Hospitals tonight on Newsnight. This sort of investigation is much more useful than more talking heads.
Talking head stuff is absolutely the worst import from the US. It is rarely informative, mostly setup for clickbait arguments.
I just dont understand how the BBC can get away with this. They spend insane millions on lightweight entertainment which another channel can do in spades rather than do the key public service thing with news and current affairs and factual stuff.
The BBC has been like this from the start under Lord Reith. Its mission was always to Inform, Educate and Entertain.
No other channel existed when Reith said this.
True but barely relevant.
Yes it is. BBC can do stuff others dont. Newsnight is a classic example. There's 500 channels of advert and subscriber based "shit" as Pink Floyd once put it.
The BBC does "do stuff others don't" but if its entire output consisted of highbrow programmes with under 100,000 viewers or listeners (and often a long way under) the clamour to ditch the licence would be overwhelming (and it is already quite loud).
Oh come on. You know I'm not saying the Beeb just does a PBS.
Have you posted the wrong video? That one's about rogue landlords who let out grossly substandard property for extortionate rents. Or do you have another agenda?
Who is footing the bill for the extortionate rent?
The point is that the whole system is dysfunctional and that transaction simply shouldn't be happening. It has the effect of pushing prices up for people paying their own way in the private sector.
Some landline systems do not disconnect calls immediately. So you think you've hung up and the bad actor plays a dialling tone down the phone; you dial the bank's number, and they say "Hello, this is your bank."
Except it's not a new call; it's the old one.
AIUI you can get around it by using a different phone or mobile, or making another call to someone (make sure it connects).
I wonder why landline systems are set up in this way. Some artefact of old systems?
I think it's one of those ancient things that was once "just the way it worked" (because the caller is paying for the call it matters that they can terminate it; it probably initially seemed less important that the caller could do so quickly), then got kept around through various technology transitions because some people relied on it as a feature (if you have multiple wired in landline phones around your house this lets you put down the handset on the hallway phone you originally picked up the call on and go and use the bedroom phone instead, because the call stays connected in the time between you putting down one handset and picking up the other), and then more recently has been being changed because of the fraud problem. Supposedly BT cut it from 2 minutes to 10 seconds in 2014 (which by that point was just "change a config value in the digital exchange"; would no doubt have been more painful in the days of analogue mechanical exchanges).
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
Indeed some of the most deadly interviews in recent years have been by soft sofa interviews. It lulls people into a false sense of security.
Looking forward to the forthcoming dramatisation of the Emily Maitlis interview of Ponce Andrew, sorry Prince Andrew, starring Ruth Wilson and Michael Sheen.
She has already commented the cuts to Newsnight mean that interview could never be repeated
Calling BS....BBC have managed to do things like Schofield interview without it having to be Newsnight. Amol Rajan has got to do numerous serious sit down interviews over the past few years. Martin Bashir also did them through Panorama if I remember correctly.
They are a multi-billion quid organisation, if there is really a story and need research / interview they have the resources to do it. They still do multi-year investigations like the ones they do with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
The reality is Newsnight gets very few scoops these days and politicians don't exactly rush to go on the programme.
Pretty big expose of whistleblowing and cover up in the Sussex Hospitals tonight on Newsnight. This sort of investigation is much more useful than more talking heads.
Talking head stuff is absolutely the worst import from the US. It is rarely informative, mostly setup for clickbait arguments.
I just dont understand how the BBC can get away with this. They spend insane millions on lightweight entertainment which another channel can do in spades rather than do the key public service thing with news and current affairs and factual stuff.
The BBC has been like this from the start under Lord Reith. Its mission was always to Inform, Educate and Entertain.
No other channel existed when Reith said this.
True but barely relevant.
Yes it is. BBC can do stuff others dont. Newsnight is a classic example. There's 500 channels of advert and subscriber based "shit" as Pink Floyd once put it.
The BBC does "do stuff others don't" but if its entire output consisted of highbrow programmes with under 100,000 viewers or listeners (and often a long way under) the clamour to ditch the licence would be overwhelming (and it is already quite loud).
Oh come on. You know I'm not saying the Beeb just does a PBS.
Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
No, in effect Morgan has potentially committed slander (even Scobie did not name the names in the English text of his book and says the Dutch version was a translation error).
Fortunately for Morgan as TalkTV has about 1 viewer (whose wife is the 1 listener to Times Radio) nobody noticed until your post
Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
No, in effect Morgan has potentially committed slander (even Scobie did not name the names in the English text of his book and says the Dutch version was a translation error).
Fortunately for Morgan as TalkTV has about 1 viewer (whose wife is the 1 listener to Times Radio) nobody noticed until your post
He posted the clip on Twitter and it’s had 3 million views so far.
Some landline systems do not disconnect calls immediately. So you think you've hung up and the bad actor plays a dialling tone down the phone; you dial the bank's number, and they say "Hello, this is your bank."
Except it's not a new call; it's the old one.
AIUI you can get around it by using a different phone or mobile, or making another call to someone (make sure it connects).
I wonder why landline systems are set up in this way. Some artefact of old systems?
I think it's one of those ancient things that was once "just the way it worked" (because the caller is paying for the call it matters that they can terminate it; it probably initially seemed less important that the caller could do so quickly), then got kept around through various technology transitions because some people relied on it as a feature (if you have multiple wired in landline phones around your house this lets you put down the handset on the hallway phone you originally picked up the call on and go and use the bedroom phone instead, because the call stays connected in the time between you putting down one handset and picking up the other), and then more recently has been being changed because of the fraud problem. Supposedly BT cut it from 2 minutes to 10 seconds in 2014 (which by that point was just "change a config value in the digital exchange"; would no doubt have been more painful in the days of analogue mechanical exchanges).
Some years ago I got a call that I tentatively assumed was from a scammer. I don't remember much about it, but I do recall that they tried several times to get me to say "yes". Which I guessed, at the time, they would record, and use to impersonate me.
Some landline systems do not disconnect calls immediately. So you think you've hung up and the bad actor plays a dialling tone down the phone; you dial the bank's number, and they say "Hello, this is your bank."
Except it's not a new call; it's the old one.
AIUI you can get around it by using a different phone or mobile, or making another call to someone (make sure it connects).
I wonder why landline systems are set up in this way. Some artefact of old systems?
I think it's one of those ancient things that was once "just the way it worked" (because the caller is paying for the call it matters that they can terminate it; it probably initially seemed less important that the caller could do so quickly), then got kept around through various technology transitions because some people relied on it as a feature (if you have multiple wired in landline phones around your house this lets you put down the handset on the hallway phone you originally picked up the call on and go and use the bedroom phone instead, because the call stays connected in the time between you putting down one handset and picking up the other), and then more recently has been being changed because of the fraud problem. Supposedly BT cut it from 2 minutes to 10 seconds in 2014 (which by that point was just "change a config value in the digital exchange"; would no doubt have been more painful in the days of analogue mechanical exchanges).
Do many people use landlines much anymore?
About 20 million households have them.
I have one. It comes with my cable telly. But I don’t use it. There’s no handset plugged in. I don’t even know the number. What is the point of them?
Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
No, in effect Morgan has potentially committed slander (even Scobie did not name the names in the English text of his book and says the Dutch version was a translation error).
Fortunately for Morgan as TalkTV has about 1 viewer (whose wife is the 1 listener to Times Radio) nobody noticed until your post
He posted the clip on Twitter and it’s had 3 million views so far.
Which just makes it potentially even more slanderous, as the wider the reach, the greater the argued damage in any potential defamation claim. Note no other UK media outlet has named the 2 alleged royals.
Even Scobie didn't actually name the names on TV or in his English text book and his Dutch version is being pulled due to an 'error'
Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
No, in effect Morgan has potentially committed slander (even Scobie did not name the names in the English text of his book and says the Dutch version was a translation error).
Fortunately for Morgan as TalkTV has about 1 viewer (whose wife is the 1 listener to Times Radio) nobody noticed until your post
I think you are being rather naive as it is very much out there
Frankly I have no interest in the story or the Royals
There are far more important things to concentrate on and in my case my own health
Some landline systems do not disconnect calls immediately. So you think you've hung up and the bad actor plays a dialling tone down the phone; you dial the bank's number, and they say "Hello, this is your bank."
Except it's not a new call; it's the old one.
AIUI you can get around it by using a different phone or mobile, or making another call to someone (make sure it connects).
I wonder why landline systems are set up in this way. Some artefact of old systems?
I think it's one of those ancient things that was once "just the way it worked" (because the caller is paying for the call it matters that they can terminate it; it probably initially seemed less important that the caller could do so quickly), then got kept around through various technology transitions because some people relied on it as a feature (if you have multiple wired in landline phones around your house this lets you put down the handset on the hallway phone you originally picked up the call on and go and use the bedroom phone instead, because the call stays connected in the time between you putting down one handset and picking up the other), and then more recently has been being changed because of the fraud problem. Supposedly BT cut it from 2 minutes to 10 seconds in 2014 (which by that point was just "change a config value in the digital exchange"; would no doubt have been more painful in the days of analogue mechanical exchanges).
Some landline systems do not disconnect calls immediately. So you think you've hung up and the bad actor plays a dialling tone down the phone; you dial the bank's number, and they say "Hello, this is your bank."
Except it's not a new call; it's the old one.
AIUI you can get around it by using a different phone or mobile, or making another call to someone (make sure it connects).
I wonder why landline systems are set up in this way. Some artefact of old systems?
I think it's one of those ancient things that was once "just the way it worked" (because the caller is paying for the call it matters that they can terminate it; it probably initially seemed less important that the caller could do so quickly), then got kept around through various technology transitions because some people relied on it as a feature (if you have multiple wired in landline phones around your house this lets you put down the handset on the hallway phone you originally picked up the call on and go and use the bedroom phone instead, because the call stays connected in the time between you putting down one handset and picking up the other), and then more recently has been being changed because of the fraud problem. Supposedly BT cut it from 2 minutes to 10 seconds in 2014 (which by that point was just "change a config value in the digital exchange"; would no doubt have been more painful in the days of analogue mechanical exchanges).
Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
No, in effect Morgan has potentially committed slander (even Scobie did not name the names in the English text of his book and says the Dutch version was a translation error).
Fortunately for Morgan as TalkTV has about 1 viewer (whose wife is the 1 listener to Times Radio) nobody noticed until your post
I think you are being rather naive as it is very much out there
Frankly I have no interest in the story or the Royals
There are far more important things to concentrate on and in my case my own health
Not in the UK it isn't, Morgan is the only UK media journalist or presenter who has named the alleged 2 royals
Twitter with a low cost base, an advertising partnership with someone who the demographics of its users (like, Google or Facebook) and some moderately unobtrusive filtering of the worst stream of shit, and you'll have a profitable company.
Some landline systems do not disconnect calls immediately. So you think you've hung up and the bad actor plays a dialling tone down the phone; you dial the bank's number, and they say "Hello, this is your bank."
Except it's not a new call; it's the old one.
AIUI you can get around it by using a different phone or mobile, or making another call to someone (make sure it connects).
I wonder why landline systems are set up in this way. Some artefact of old systems?
I think it's one of those ancient things that was once "just the way it worked" (because the caller is paying for the call it matters that they can terminate it; it probably initially seemed less important that the caller could do so quickly), then got kept around through various technology transitions because some people relied on it as a feature (if you have multiple wired in landline phones around your house this lets you put down the handset on the hallway phone you originally picked up the call on and go and use the bedroom phone instead, because the call stays connected in the time between you putting down one handset and picking up the other), and then more recently has been being changed because of the fraud problem. Supposedly BT cut it from 2 minutes to 10 seconds in 2014 (which by that point was just "change a config value in the digital exchange"; would no doubt have been more painful in the days of analogue mechanical exchanges).
Do many people use landlines much anymore?
About 20 million households have them.
I have one. It comes with my cable telly. But I don’t use it. There’s no handset plugged in. I don’t even know the number. What is the point of them?
About a quarter of households "never" use them. So that's 15 million or so that do.
Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee My thoughts are with my former @BBCNewsnight colleagues today, as they’re told that the programme as we know and love it is to be no more. It’s a terrible day for UK investigative and original journalism. (1/2)
BBC Two's Newsnight is to be cut back and have its format overhauled as part of a plan to save money in the corporation's news department.
Can't they save money by, as a totally random example, cutting Strictly down by five minutes per episode?
That would require at least 50 quite expensive managerial team trips to a nice hotel to 'bounce ideas' and such. Be at least 10 minutes off Strictly just to cover the initial fact-finding trips.
Standard MO for any public service when asked to find savings - go straight for something they notice, and then parade your bleeding stumps publicly so nobody asks you to find any more savings ever again.
The thing is Newsnight has piss poor viewership these days. It really isn't the essential viewing it was 20 years ago when Paxman was Paxo'ing lying politicians every night. High profile politicians don't even feel the need to go on there anymore as it doesn't set the agenda in the way it used to.
Obviously the BBC could easily save £40-50 million by again cutting the shit show that is BBC Three from being over the air that has Talk TV levels of live viewership. Absolutely no need for it. If they want to fund edgy untested show for da yuff, just stick it on iPlayer.
And of course most of the public have no idea about how BBC Studios / Worldwide operates and that BBC owns UKTV, which in bring loads of revenue on top of licence fee (and have ads).
I agree that Newsnight isn't good compared to 15 or 20 years ago, but it's still one of the better programmes on BBC TV.
The public disagrees, down to less than 300k viewers.
To be fair, pretty much all broadcast news viewing has collapsed.
Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
No, in effect Morgan has potentially committed slander (even Scobie did not name the names in the English text of his book and says the Dutch version was a translation error).
Fortunately for Morgan as TalkTV has about 1 viewer (whose wife is the 1 listener to Times Radio) nobody noticed until your post
I think you are being rather naive as it is very much out there
Frankly I have no interest in the story or the Royals
There are far more important things to concentrate on and in my case my own health
Not in the UK it isn't, Morgan is the only UK media journalist or presenter who has named the alleged 2 royals
Of course it is - Piers Morgan has posted it and millions have seen it
Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
No, in effect Morgan has potentially committed slander (even Scobie did not name the names in the English text of his book and says the Dutch version was a translation error).
Fortunately for Morgan as TalkTV has about 1 viewer (whose wife is the 1 listener to Times Radio) nobody noticed until your post
I think you are being rather naive as it is very much out there
Frankly I have no interest in the story or the Royals
There are far more important things to concentrate on and in my case my own health
Not in the UK it isn't, Morgan is the only UK media journalist or presenter who has named the alleged 2 royals
Anyone who googles will know
It is in no way a “translation” error. Redaction is not “translated”. It is or it isn’t.
In my view this was an entirely intentional “mistake”
But at the end of the day who cares what a two bit nobody thinks or says. And as for Scobie…
Twitter has other shareholders. It also has debtholders.
Now Musk can continually sell down his Telsa and SpaceX shares to inject money into Twitter to keep it on life support. But he's not completely without obligations to the other owners.
Some landline systems do not disconnect calls immediately. So you think you've hung up and the bad actor plays a dialling tone down the phone; you dial the bank's number, and they say "Hello, this is your bank."
Except it's not a new call; it's the old one.
AIUI you can get around it by using a different phone or mobile, or making another call to someone (make sure it connects).
I wonder why landline systems are set up in this way. Some artefact of old systems?
I think it's one of those ancient things that was once "just the way it worked" (because the caller is paying for the call it matters that they can terminate it; it probably initially seemed less important that the caller could do so quickly), then got kept around through various technology transitions because some people relied on it as a feature (if you have multiple wired in landline phones around your house this lets you put down the handset on the hallway phone you originally picked up the call on and go and use the bedroom phone instead, because the call stays connected in the time between you putting down one handset and picking up the other), and then more recently has been being changed because of the fraud problem. Supposedly BT cut it from 2 minutes to 10 seconds in 2014 (which by that point was just "change a config value in the digital exchange"; would no doubt have been more painful in the days of analogue mechanical exchanges).
Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
No, in effect Morgan has potentially committed slander (even Scobie did not name the names in the English text of his book and says the Dutch version was a translation error).
Fortunately for Morgan as TalkTV has about 1 viewer (whose wife is the 1 listener to Times Radio) nobody noticed until your post
I think you are being rather naive as it is very much out there
Frankly I have no interest in the story or the Royals
There are far more important things to concentrate on and in my case my own health
Not in the UK it isn't, Morgan is the only UK media journalist or presenter who has named the alleged 2 royals
It took me about two seconds to find it on Twitter.
Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
No, in effect Morgan has potentially committed slander (even Scobie did not name the names in the English text of his book and says the Dutch version was a translation error).
Fortunately for Morgan as TalkTV has about 1 viewer (whose wife is the 1 listener to Times Radio) nobody noticed until your post
I think you are being rather naive as it is very much out there
Frankly I have no interest in the story or the Royals
There are far more important things to concentrate on and in my case my own health
Not in the UK it isn't, Morgan is the only UK media journalist or presenter who has named the alleged 2 royals
Parenthetically, the bastardisation of the term "journalist" is yet another thing I hate about the 21st century. Morgan is not a journalist.
Some landline systems do not disconnect calls immediately. So you think you've hung up and the bad actor plays a dialling tone down the phone; you dial the bank's number, and they say "Hello, this is your bank."
Except it's not a new call; it's the old one.
AIUI you can get around it by using a different phone or mobile, or making another call to someone (make sure it connects).
I wonder why landline systems are set up in this way. Some artefact of old systems?
I think it's one of those ancient things that was once "just the way it worked" (because the caller is paying for the call it matters that they can terminate it; it probably initially seemed less important that the caller could do so quickly), then got kept around through various technology transitions because some people relied on it as a feature (if you have multiple wired in landline phones around your house this lets you put down the handset on the hallway phone you originally picked up the call on and go and use the bedroom phone instead, because the call stays connected in the time between you putting down one handset and picking up the other), and then more recently has been being changed because of the fraud problem. Supposedly BT cut it from 2 minutes to 10 seconds in 2014 (which by that point was just "change a config value in the digital exchange"; would no doubt have been more painful in the days of analogue mechanical exchanges).
Do many people use landlines much anymore?
About 20 million households have them.
That wasn’t the question!
Indeed it wasn’t
The only use we have got for it is our son in Vancouver uses it to ring us as it is cheap to do so apparently
Some landline systems do not disconnect calls immediately. So you think you've hung up and the bad actor plays a dialling tone down the phone; you dial the bank's number, and they say "Hello, this is your bank."
Except it's not a new call; it's the old one.
AIUI you can get around it by using a different phone or mobile, or making another call to someone (make sure it connects).
I wonder why landline systems are set up in this way. Some artefact of old systems?
I think it's one of those ancient things that was once "just the way it worked" (because the caller is paying for the call it matters that they can terminate it; it probably initially seemed less important that the caller could do so quickly), then got kept around through various technology transitions because some people relied on it as a feature (if you have multiple wired in landline phones around your house this lets you put down the handset on the hallway phone you originally picked up the call on and go and use the bedroom phone instead, because the call stays connected in the time between you putting down one handset and picking up the other), and then more recently has been being changed because of the fraud problem. Supposedly BT cut it from 2 minutes to 10 seconds in 2014 (which by that point was just "change a config value in the digital exchange"; would no doubt have been more painful in the days of analogue mechanical exchanges).
Do many people use landlines much anymore?
About 20 million households have them.
I have one. It comes with my cable telly. But I don’t use it. There’s no handset plugged in. I don’t even know the number. What is the point of them?
About a quarter of households "never" use them. So that's 15 million or so that do.
My question was: do they use them much? What exactly is the point of them? They seem to me to be a complete waste of space, unless you are in a mobile black spot (which I accept some people are). Otherwise, entirely pointless relics.
Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
No, in effect Morgan has potentially committed slander (even Scobie did not name the names in the English text of his book and says the Dutch version was a translation error).
Fortunately for Morgan as TalkTV has about 1 viewer (whose wife is the 1 listener to Times Radio) nobody noticed until your post
I think you are being rather naive as it is very much out there
Frankly I have no interest in the story or the Royals
There are far more important things to concentrate on and in my case my own health
Not in the UK it isn't, Morgan is the only UK media journalist or presenter who has named the alleged 2 royals
Parenthetically, the bastardisation of the term "journalist" is yet another thing I hate about the 21st century. Morgan is not a journalist.
Well he’s edited two national newspapers and interviews people in the media, so what is he then, if not a journalist?
Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
No, in effect Morgan has potentially committed slander (even Scobie did not name the names in the English text of his book and says the Dutch version was a translation error).
Fortunately for Morgan as TalkTV has about 1 viewer (whose wife is the 1 listener to Times Radio) nobody noticed until your post
I think you are being rather naive as it is very much out there
Frankly I have no interest in the story or the Royals
There are far more important things to concentrate on and in my case my own health
Not in the UK it isn't, Morgan is the only UK media journalist or presenter who has named the alleged 2 royals
Parenthetically, the bastardisation of the term "journalist" is yet another thing I hate about the 21st century. Morgan is not a journalist.
Well he’s edited two national newspapers and interviews people in the media, so what is he then, if not a journalist?
Do you want an honest answer to your question? !!!!!!
Twitter with a low cost base, an advertising partnership with someone who the demographics of its users (like, Google or Facebook) and some moderately unobtrusive filtering of the worst stream of shit, and you'll have a profitable company.
The new X has given me porn in the past. A couple of days ago it followed up with someone getting shot.
Elon is going full Trump....even if you think that, normally you say it to their faces in private. Not bigly fuck you, fuck everybody, go fuck yourself.
Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
No, in effect Morgan has potentially committed slander (even Scobie did not name the names in the English text of his book and says the Dutch version was a translation error).
Fortunately for Morgan as TalkTV has about 1 viewer (whose wife is the 1 listener to Times Radio) nobody noticed until your post
I think you are being rather naive as it is very much out there
Frankly I have no interest in the story or the Royals
There are far more important things to concentrate on and in my case my own health
Not in the UK it isn't, Morgan is the only UK media journalist or presenter who has named the alleged 2 royals
It took me about two seconds to find it on Twitter.
And retweeting it could also open you up to a minor libel claim, see the McAlpine or Giggs cases
The kid who got smeared with accusations of black face (because half of his face was black and other half was red) at the American Football while dressed as an Indian Chief....rather hilariously, is as actually native American .
Lawyers are going to sue the shit out of the sports journalist who was tweeting about him giving it the big'un about black face and cultural appropriation.
Piers is just desperate to get clicks and views, because nobody watches his show.
I have to say not a fan of his approach, but quite surprised how piss poor his viewership is. Once again shows all those likes on tw@tter means absolutely bugger all. Just cos an "own" or two goes viral on the X, doesn't mean the tw@tterverse will be tuning into your tv show.
The Telegraph has analysed a cache of screenshots, shared by a concerned listener, collated since the start of the Israel-Hamas war on Oct 7 that show Asian Network presenters accusing Israel of committing genocide, sharing conspiracy theory videos and encouraging followers to attend pro-Palestine marches.
BBC bosses were alerted to concerns about the social media accounts about three weeks after Hamas’s attacks on Israel.
Yet on Wednesday, while some of the posts have been deleted, several of the highlighted posts remain online.
Some landline systems do not disconnect calls immediately. So you think you've hung up and the bad actor plays a dialling tone down the phone; you dial the bank's number, and they say "Hello, this is your bank."
Except it's not a new call; it's the old one.
AIUI you can get around it by using a different phone or mobile, or making another call to someone (make sure it connects).
I wonder why landline systems are set up in this way. Some artefact of old systems?
I think it's one of those ancient things that was once "just the way it worked" (because the caller is paying for the call it matters that they can terminate it; it probably initially seemed less important that the caller could do so quickly), then got kept around through various technology transitions because some people relied on it as a feature (if you have multiple wired in landline phones around your house this lets you put down the handset on the hallway phone you originally picked up the call on and go and use the bedroom phone instead, because the call stays connected in the time between you putting down one handset and picking up the other), and then more recently has been being changed because of the fraud problem. Supposedly BT cut it from 2 minutes to 10 seconds in 2014 (which by that point was just "change a config value in the digital exchange"; would no doubt have been more painful in the days of analogue mechanical exchanges).
Do many people use landlines much anymore?
About 20 million households have them.
I have one. It comes with my cable telly. But I don’t use it. There’s no handset plugged in. I don’t even know the number. What is the point of them?
About a quarter of households "never" use them. So that's 15 million or so that do.
My question was: do they use them much? What exactly is the point of them? They seem to me to be a complete waste of space, unless you are in a mobile black spot (which I accept some people are). Otherwise, entirely pointless relics.
Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
No, in effect Morgan has potentially committed slander (even Scobie did not name the names in the English text of his book and says the Dutch version was a translation error).
Fortunately for Morgan as TalkTV has about 1 viewer (whose wife is the 1 listener to Times Radio) nobody noticed until your post
I think you are being rather naive as it is very much out there
Frankly I have no interest in the story or the Royals
There are far more important things to concentrate on and in my case my own health
Not in the UK it isn't, Morgan is the only UK media journalist or presenter who has named the alleged 2 royals
No, Kait Borsay stated the names on Times Radio at approx 9.45pm.
She did it quite innocently, just stating that these were the names given by Morgan.
I think she just assumed it was OK to state the names and no big deal.
"Nihal Arthanayake says working at the overwhelmingly white BBC is bad for his mental health
BBC Radio 5 Live presenter made comments at journalism diversity conference Claimed lots of people leave because they couldn't deal with the culture BBC producer said the organisation is committed to tackling lack of diversity"
"Nihal Arthanayake says working at the overwhelmingly white BBC is bad for his mental health
BBC Radio 5 Live presenter made comments at journalism diversity conference Claimed lots of people leave because they couldn't deal with the culture BBC producer said the organisation is committed to tackling lack of diversity"
That is just racist and I just don't believe his claims about not a single Muslim (why your religion matters) is an senior editorial role at R5. Also, hasn't stopped him working there for over 20 years, so can't be having that much of an impact.
Also so BS about not many Asians since R5 went to Salford / Manchester. Clearly he doesn't get out much from the BBC bubble. 17% of the population of Manchester are South Asian, including 9% Pakistani.
I know what is bad for my mental health, hearing him on the radio.
Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee My thoughts are with my former @BBCNewsnight colleagues today, as they’re told that the programme as we know and love it is to be no more. It’s a terrible day for UK investigative and original journalism. (1/2)
BBC Two's Newsnight is to be cut back and have its format overhauled as part of a plan to save money in the corporation's news department.
Can't they save money by, as a totally random example, cutting Strictly down by five minutes per episode?
That would require at least 50 quite expensive managerial team trips to a nice hotel to 'bounce ideas' and such. Be at least 10 minutes off Strictly just to cover the initial fact-finding trips.
Standard MO for any public service when asked to find savings - go straight for something they notice, and then parade your bleeding stumps publicly so nobody asks you to find any more savings ever again.
The thing is Newsnight has piss poor viewership these days. It really isn't the essential viewing it was 20 years ago when Paxman was Paxo'ing lying politicians every night. High profile politicians don't even feel the need to go on there anymore as it doesn't set the agenda in the way it used to.
Obviously the BBC could easily save £40-50 million by again cutting the shit show that is BBC Three from being over the air that has Talk TV levels of live viewership. Absolutely no need for it. If they want to fund edgy untested show for da yuff, just stick it on iPlayer.
And of course most of the public have no idea about how BBC Studios / Worldwide operates and that BBC owns UKTV, which in bring loads of revenue on top of licence fee (and have ads).
I agree that Newsnight isn't good compared to 15 or 20 years ago, but it's still one of the better programmes on BBC TV.
The public disagrees, down to less than 300k viewers.
Newsnight was never that popular at any stage AFAIK, because serious news programmes never are. I'd be interested to know what its peak audience was.
It used to get million+ 10 years ago.
Edit - million on a good day, but your right not stellar, but it has been losing audience consistently since Paxman went. Now its 300k on a good day, sometimes as low as 150k.
10 years ago the Guardian were musing had Savile scandal done for Newsnight because they had a few episodes of 600k.
That many? That's actually good, because I remember how superb the programme was when people like Peter Snow, Francine Stock, Gavin Esler, Donald McIntyre, etc, were presenting it. (A bit weird that I was watching it at the age of 10/11/12, in retrospect!?)
Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee My thoughts are with my former @BBCNewsnight colleagues today, as they’re told that the programme as we know and love it is to be no more. It’s a terrible day for UK investigative and original journalism. (1/2)
BBC Two's Newsnight is to be cut back and have its format overhauled as part of a plan to save money in the corporation's news department.
Can't they save money by, as a totally random example, cutting Strictly down by five minutes per episode?
That would require at least 50 quite expensive managerial team trips to a nice hotel to 'bounce ideas' and such. Be at least 10 minutes off Strictly just to cover the initial fact-finding trips.
Standard MO for any public service when asked to find savings - go straight for something they notice, and then parade your bleeding stumps publicly so nobody asks you to find any more savings ever again.
The thing is Newsnight has piss poor viewership these days. It really isn't the essential viewing it was 20 years ago when Paxman was Paxo'ing lying politicians every night. High profile politicians don't even feel the need to go on there anymore as it doesn't set the agenda in the way it used to.
Obviously the BBC could easily save £40-50 million by again cutting the shit show that is BBC Three from being over the air that has Talk TV levels of live viewership. Absolutely no need for it. If they want to fund edgy untested show for da yuff, just stick it on iPlayer.
And of course most of the public have no idea about how BBC Studios / Worldwide operates and that BBC owns UKTV, which in bring loads of revenue on top of licence fee (and have ads).
I agree that Newsnight isn't good compared to 15 or 20 years ago, but it's still one of the better programmes on BBC TV.
The public disagrees, down to less than 300k viewers.
Newsnight was never that popular at any stage AFAIK, because serious news programmes never are. I'd be interested to know what its peak audience was.
It used to get million+ 10 years ago.
Edit - million on a good day, but your right not stellar, but it has been losing audience consistently since Paxman went. Now its 300k on a good day, sometimes as low as 150k.
10 years ago the Guardian were musing had Savile scandal done for Newsnight because they had a few episodes of 600k.
That many? That's actually good, because I remember how superb the programme was when people like Peter Snow, Francine Stock, Gavin Esler, Donald McIntyre, etc, were presenting it. (A bit weird that I was watching it at the age of 10/11/12, in retrospect!?)
It took a real downturn when Evan Davis hosted and they tried to make it more hip and cool.
Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee My thoughts are with my former @BBCNewsnight colleagues today, as they’re told that the programme as we know and love it is to be no more. It’s a terrible day for UK investigative and original journalism. (1/2)
BBC Two's Newsnight is to be cut back and have its format overhauled as part of a plan to save money in the corporation's news department.
Can't they save money by, as a totally random example, cutting Strictly down by five minutes per episode?
That would require at least 50 quite expensive managerial team trips to a nice hotel to 'bounce ideas' and such. Be at least 10 minutes off Strictly just to cover the initial fact-finding trips.
Standard MO for any public service when asked to find savings - go straight for something they notice, and then parade your bleeding stumps publicly so nobody asks you to find any more savings ever again.
The thing is Newsnight has piss poor viewership these days. It really isn't the essential viewing it was 20 years ago when Paxman was Paxo'ing lying politicians every night. High profile politicians don't even feel the need to go on there anymore as it doesn't set the agenda in the way it used to.
Obviously the BBC could easily save £40-50 million by again cutting the shit show that is BBC Three from being over the air that has Talk TV levels of live viewership. Absolutely no need for it. If they want to fund edgy untested show for da yuff, just stick it on iPlayer.
And of course most of the public have no idea about how BBC Studios / Worldwide operates and that BBC owns UKTV, which in bring loads of revenue on top of licence fee (and have ads).
I agree that Newsnight isn't good compared to 15 or 20 years ago, but it's still one of the better programmes on BBC TV.
The public disagrees, down to less than 300k viewers.
Newsnight was never that popular at any stage AFAIK, because serious news programmes never are. I'd be interested to know what its peak audience was.
It used to get million+ 10 years ago.
Edit - million on a good day, but your right not stellar, but it has been losing audience consistently since Paxman went. Now its 300k on a good day, sometimes as low as 150k.
10 years ago the Guardian were musing had Savile scandal done for Newsnight because they had a few episodes of 600k.
That many? That's actually good, because I remember how superb the programme was when people like Peter Snow, Francine Stock, Gavin Esler, Donald McIntyre, etc, were presenting it. (A bit weird that I was watching it at the age of 10/11/12, in retrospect!?)
It took a real downturn when Evan Davis hosted and they tried to make it more hip and cool.
And that was completely unnecessary because they already had quite a good format in the era when it was balanced by the Newsnight Review programme with people like Tom Paulin and Ekow Eshun.
Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee My thoughts are with my former @BBCNewsnight colleagues today, as they’re told that the programme as we know and love it is to be no more. It’s a terrible day for UK investigative and original journalism. (1/2)
BBC Two's Newsnight is to be cut back and have its format overhauled as part of a plan to save money in the corporation's news department.
Can't they save money by, as a totally random example, cutting Strictly down by five minutes per episode?
That would require at least 50 quite expensive managerial team trips to a nice hotel to 'bounce ideas' and such. Be at least 10 minutes off Strictly just to cover the initial fact-finding trips.
Standard MO for any public service when asked to find savings - go straight for something they notice, and then parade your bleeding stumps publicly so nobody asks you to find any more savings ever again.
The thing is Newsnight has piss poor viewership these days. It really isn't the essential viewing it was 20 years ago when Paxman was Paxo'ing lying politicians every night. High profile politicians don't even feel the need to go on there anymore as it doesn't set the agenda in the way it used to.
Obviously the BBC could easily save £40-50 million by again cutting the shit show that is BBC Three from being over the air that has Talk TV levels of live viewership. Absolutely no need for it. If they want to fund edgy untested show for da yuff, just stick it on iPlayer.
And of course most of the public have no idea about how BBC Studios / Worldwide operates and that BBC owns UKTV, which in bring loads of revenue on top of licence fee (and have ads).
I agree that Newsnight isn't good compared to 15 or 20 years ago, but it's still one of the better programmes on BBC TV.
The public disagrees, down to less than 300k viewers.
Newsnight was never that popular at any stage AFAIK, because serious news programmes never are. I'd be interested to know what its peak audience was.
It used to get million+ 10 years ago.
Edit - million on a good day, but your right not stellar, but it has been losing audience consistently since Paxman went. Now its 300k on a good day, sometimes as low as 150k.
10 years ago the Guardian were musing had Savile scandal done for Newsnight because they had a few episodes of 600k.
That many? That's actually good, because I remember how superb the programme was when people like Peter Snow, Francine Stock, Gavin Esler, Donald McIntyre, etc, were presenting it. (A bit weird that I was watching it at the age of 10/11/12, in retrospect!?)
It took a real downturn when Evan Davis hosted and they tried to make it more hip and cool.
And that was completely unnecessary because they already had quite a good format in the era when it was balanced by the Newsnight Review programme with people like Tom Paulin and Ekow Eshun.
That's another thing that has gone downhill. At the time, Friday afternoon was Kermode / Mayo film reviews and evening Newsnight review were well worth tuning in to.
Scotch on the Rocks: The TV drama locked away for 50 years ... The battle for Scottish independence has taken a violent turn after paramilitary "soldiers" of the Scottish Liberation Army (SLA) took over the town of Fort William.
Troops from English regiments of the British army are massing north of Glasgow to turn back an expected assault on the nation's largest city.
The prime minister is meeting his cabinet in London.
And the leadership of the SNP, the party which recently narrowly missed out on winning a majority in the Westminster parliament, has yet to condemn the actions in the Highlands. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66889553
A 1973 television drama that has not been shown since, based on a story by [fx: drum roll] Douglas Hurd, the future Home Secretary.
A few years ago - sitting in my appartment in Doha during Covid restrictions - I had a telephone call claiming to be from Metrash - a government department that managed the local Covid app. They told me my name and my Qatar ID number so I believed them to be genuine. They said that there was a synchronisation issue between my phone and the app (very plausible - happened regularly) and they tried to reset it with me. After a few 'unsuccesful' attempts they said they needed a PIN reset code from the phone operator and asked me to request it using phone app. I did this (I know - big mistake.....) and they then said that was succesful. They said they would check a few other things.....and then said that my bank details were also unsynchronised and could I reconfirm these. That rang an alarm bell and I challenged them ...and ended the call. I decided to call my bank - to find my phone had been deactivated. So I emailed the bank fraud department and told them to freeze my account - then emailed Metrash with the details. I then walked to the nearest phone operator service centre to advise them the same, and to reactivate my phone. They told me that my phone (SIM) was currently in use - and had just opened a cash payment account (like Apple Pay) and had made a payment to maximum of my credit (only around £100 because I dont use phone payments). The phone company immediately reversed the transfer, blocked the new SIM, reinstated my phone and took all the details. This was all within less than 1 hour!!!
I then called the bank, the police, Metrash, and gave them all the details. If I had set up a credit account with my phone it would have been emptied. The scammers new just enough details - name, QID, phone number - which at the time were needed to make restaurant, bar, barber bookings etc so easy to obtain. Then using a plausible scenario to try and get more details......
I am relativley intelligent and street smart...but they still tricked me. It is easy to see how gullible people get caught.
Scotch on the Rocks: The TV drama locked away for 50 years ... The battle for Scottish independence has taken a violent turn after paramilitary "soldiers" of the Scottish Liberation Army (SLA) took over the town of Fort William.
Troops from English regiments of the British army are massing north of Glasgow to turn back an expected assault on the nation's largest city.
The prime minister is meeting his cabinet in London.
And the leadership of the SNP, the party which recently narrowly missed out on winning a majority in the Westminster parliament, has yet to condemn the actions in the Highlands. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66889553
A 1973 television drama that has not been shown since, based on a story by [fx: drum roll] Douglas Hurd, the future Home Secretary.
If anyone is looking for a good political drama - try Occupied on Netflix. Excellent story.
Piers Morgan has tonight named (on TalkTV I think) the two members of the royal family who questionned what colour skin Harry and Meghan's baby would have.
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
No, in effect Morgan has potentially committed slander (even Scobie did not name the names in the English text of his book and says the Dutch version was a translation error).
Fortunately for Morgan as TalkTV has about 1 viewer (whose wife is the 1 listener to Times Radio) nobody noticed until your post
@FrancisUrquhart Paxman was a terrible interviewer, because he made people stonewall.
The great interviewers were Brian Walden, Ludovic Kennedy, Robin Day, and David Frost.
I don't disagree and we basically never have any long form interviews on MSM these days with politicians. Which I think is a a great shame and YouTube is now where you have to go to find intellectual debates of ideas.
But at the time, Newsnight got much high ratings and politicians felt the need to be on there to defend their message.
The point about Newsnight though isn't and never was ratings though, they weren't great except for big specials even in its supposed 90s/early 2000s heyday. It would get beaten by Channel 4 showing a film with some naughty moments. People have moaned about its ratings for at least two decades.
It's a flagship in-depth news show that was there to a) lead the news agenda by doing big scoops/deep dives that are given room to breathe, help feed the BBC's news division and are picked up elsewhere b) to have a viewership that's small but influential because it's either professionally or intensely personally switched on to politics.
Sure it wasn't about getting 10 million viewers like Strictly, but the public aren't watching it in anywhere near the numbers they were before.
Sure. Its viewership is down - but so is literally every programme on linear TV, even Strictly. EastEnders for example, pulls in barely a quarter of the viewers it once did. But unlike light ent, drama, soaps, daytime or even softer news/documentaries, there are reasons to keep it going even if the regular viewing figures are very low.
Firstly because it's one of the few BBC news assets left with the prestige, space, and expertise to pull off big moments like the Prince Andrew interview that do, every so often, get big figures. Secondly, it's there to do the dull but worthy and important stuff that is more or less the remaining point of having a public service broadcaster - and that is picked up elsewhere when it hits upon something.
@trussliz Conservative leadership and the Anglo-American alliance are vital. I'm in Washington DC with @MPIainDS, @JackLopresti, Mark Francois and Lord Howard for talks with Republican counterparts.
@trussliz Conservative leadership and the Anglo-American alliance are vital. I'm in Washington DC with @MPIainDS, @JackLopresti, Mark Francois and Lord Howard for talks with Republican counterparts.
"Nihal Arthanayake says working at the overwhelmingly white BBC is bad for his mental health
BBC Radio 5 Live presenter made comments at journalism diversity conference Claimed lots of people leave because they couldn't deal with the culture BBC producer said the organisation is committed to tackling lack of diversity"
"Nihal Arthanayake says working at the overwhelmingly white BBC is bad for his mental health
BBC Radio 5 Live presenter made comments at journalism diversity conference Claimed lots of people leave because they couldn't deal with the culture BBC producer said the organisation is committed to tackling lack of diversity"
"Nihal Arthanayake says working at the overwhelmingly white BBC is bad for his mental health
BBC Radio 5 Live presenter made comments at journalism diversity conference Claimed lots of people leave because they couldn't deal with the culture BBC producer said the organisation is committed to tackling lack of diversity"
I'm very sad to learn of Alistair Darling's death. He was one of the few people to serve in the Brown administration, who left with his reputation enhanced.
Comments
This was being discussed on Times Radio around 10pm - including reporting the names Morgan gave.
Yet I see nothing on BBC website etc. Or on here. Surely it must now be deemed to be "out"? Or maybe not?
(I won't name them here unless am told it is appropriate to do so).
Jeez...
But it is about balance of funding.
Newsnight, foreign correspondents, Today, Panaroma etc etc
This is where more funds should go, not paying for a higher level of Z list celeb to do Strictly.
Chris Philp attended the match as a guest of the FA and sat in the royal box in hospitality worth more than £6,000
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/policing-minister-failed-to-declare-vip-football-tickets-ps2txxtj5 (£££)
The point is that the whole system is dysfunctional and that transaction simply shouldn't be happening. It has the effect of pushing prices up for people paying their own way in the private sector.
Fortunately for Morgan as TalkTV has about 1 viewer (whose wife is the 1 listener to Times Radio) nobody noticed until your post
(But I could be wrong.)
Even Scobie didn't actually name the names on TV or in his English text book and his Dutch version is being pulled due to an 'error'
Frankly I have no interest in the story or the Royals
There are far more important things to concentrate on and in my case my own health
Twitter with a low cost base, an advertising partnership with someone who the demographics of its users (like, Google or Facebook) and some moderately unobtrusive filtering of the worst stream of shit, and you'll have a profitable company.
If you are worth 450billion and spent 30billion buying Twitter, you can run it indefinitely without adverts. Rich man's toy.
https://nitter.net/AlexThomp/status/1729996181756129724#m
I would not however repeat the names
Anyone who googles will know
It is in no way a “translation” error. Redaction is not “translated”. It is or it isn’t.
In my view this was an entirely intentional “mistake”
But at the end of the day who cares what a two bit nobody thinks or says. And as for Scobie…
Twitter has other shareholders. It also has debtholders.
Now Musk can continually sell down his Telsa and SpaceX shares to inject money into Twitter to keep it on life support. But he's not completely without obligations to the other owners.
https://x.com/aubreystrobel/status/1730000411501687175?s=20
Lawyers are going to sue the shit out of the sports journalist who was tweeting about him giving it the big'un about black face and cultural appropriation.
I have to say not a fan of his approach, but quite surprised how piss poor his viewership is. Once again shows all those likes on tw@tter means absolutely bugger all. Just cos an "own" or two goes viral on the X, doesn't mean the tw@tterverse will be tuning into your tv show.
BBC bosses were alerted to concerns about the social media accounts about three weeks after Hamas’s attacks on Israel.
Yet on Wednesday, while some of the posts have been deleted, several of the highlighted posts remain online.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/29/bbc-asian-network-stars-social-media-posts-israel-hamas-war/
She did it quite innocently, just stating that these were the names given by Morgan.
I think she just assumed it was OK to state the names and no big deal.
BBC Radio 5 Live presenter made comments at journalism diversity conference
Claimed lots of people leave because they couldn't deal with the culture
BBC producer said the organisation is committed to tackling lack of diversity"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12804889/BBC-presenter-says-overwhelmingly-white-workplace-affects-mental-health.html
Also so BS about not many Asians since R5 went to Salford / Manchester. Clearly he doesn't get out much from the BBC bubble. 17% of the population of Manchester are South Asian, including 9% Pakistani.
I know what is bad for my mental health, hearing him on the radio.
https://www.limerickpost.ie/2023/11/29/id-like-to-see-them-shot-in-the-head-councillors-hard-line-on-dublin-riots/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drMwoK-XVHU
...
The battle for Scottish independence has taken a violent turn after paramilitary "soldiers" of the Scottish Liberation Army (SLA) took over the town of Fort William.
Troops from English regiments of the British army are massing north of Glasgow to turn back an expected assault on the nation's largest city.
The prime minister is meeting his cabinet in London.
And the leadership of the SNP, the party which recently narrowly missed out on winning a majority in the Westminster parliament, has yet to condemn the actions in the Highlands.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66889553
A 1973 television drama that has not been shown since, based on a story by [fx: drum roll] Douglas Hurd, the future Home Secretary.
I’ll never forget him making vague noises in support of a threat to invade Spain if they wouldn’t co-operate over Gibraltar.
I then called the bank, the police, Metrash, and gave them all the details. If I had set up a credit account with my phone it would have been emptied. The scammers new just enough details - name, QID, phone number - which at the time were needed to make restaurant, bar, barber bookings etc so easy to obtain. Then using a plausible scenario to try and get more details......
I am relativley intelligent and street smart...but they still tricked me. It is easy to see how gullible people get caught.
https://twitter.com/lolennui/status/1730067222914355649
https://twitter.com/redondodave1/status/1730069603647373327
However, it's crucial to recall these five catastrophic events, which truly epitomize his lasting legacy, amidst the widespread acclaim.
https://twitter.com/allenanalysis/status/1730048810024309064
The infamy of Nixon's foreign-policy architect sits, eternally, beside that of history's worst mass murderers. A deeper shame attaches to the country that celebrates him
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/henry-kissinger-war-criminal-dead-1234804748/
Technically, it is libel if it is on TV.
Easily one of the most influential statesmen of the last century who wasn’t a leader. Who comes close?
Firstly because it's one of the few BBC news assets left with the prestige, space, and expertise to pull off big moments like the Prince Andrew interview that do, every so often, get big figures. Secondly, it's there to do the dull but worthy and important stuff that is more or less the remaining point of having a public service broadcaster - and that is picked up elsewhere when it hits upon something.
NEW THREAD