🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Inciting or threatening violence is a crime in every country. That's not ridiculous.
Free speech doesn't give you a right to threaten others with guns.
He typed an EMOJI on a family Facebook chat
Do you want the state to go through all of your messages, WhatsApps, emails, Youtube comments, letters and posts, and find a dubious emoji or two, which they interpret in the worst possible light, and then slam you in jail?
It was 1992 when the US Secret Service first arrested some for Internet threats against the President. Mouthing off against Clinton on USENET IIRC
The official and legal reaction to an action will always be in proportion to the *result* of an action.
Hence the “make a bomb joke in an airport, got to jail thing”. In the 90s, the PIRA started getting low level helpers to phone in phone bomb threats to airports. Which would shut them down, costing millions.
There was much wailing and appeals to European courts when the little helpers started getting vacations at Club HMG.
So if you stir up a riot via Twatter, they will drop the cost of the riot on you. Whining that “I only typed 20 words” isn’t the point. It’s the end result.
There’s a very, very long list of Americans who said something like “the President is coming to my town next week, I have my gun and my bullet ready”, who found out out that the US Secret Service take every one of these online threats seriously, turning up and imprisoning people during the visit of the VIP, only letting them go once their principal was wheels up out of the city.
People say this, but then we had the Trump shooting where they were told about a disaffected teenagers out with a rifle and their response was decidedly tepid.
Are you sure that story about the secret service is true, or is it a fable based on it happening somewhere, once?
Oh no, the USSS have always been watching social media very closely, almost every city one of their VIPs goes to, has an idiot who say something stupid on Facebook and is really surprised when the Secret Service actually turns up.
The failure at the Trump rally was a different failure, of basic physical security at a speech venue.
Do you really NEED that thought? Is it an *acceptable* thought? Might your unspoken and silent opinion cause offence to someone with a protected characteristic anywhere in the world, or anyone else, in history, ever? Or could your time be better spent not thinking at all, and let US do the thinking for you?
Tell us YOUR half-formed thoughts first, here at the Home Office, before you think them
THINK BEFORE YOU THINK
36 days since Leon voted for Labour and here we are folks.
The torment. The self-loathing.
It's remarkable how quick people were to forget what a Labour government is actually LIKE, so blinded were they by intense loathing for the Tories. I remember it always being brought back to that when I raised any of it before the election. But, absolutely none of it should come as any surprise. This is what they do.
We had all of it 14 years ago, and they should all have remembered that - were they thinking clearly - to make a rational and balanced choice based on the two realistic options before them.
Yes, and still voting for Starmer's Labour was a better option than Sunak's Tories. Even for this right-winger.
Which says more about Sunak's Tories than Starmer's Labour.
Hopefully now the Tories can sort themselves out in opposition, don't become a Farage tribute act, and become worthy of voting for again.
You aren't a rightwinger, you are a liberal centrist except on housing where you want a building free for all.
Leon however is a rightwinger who probably regrets he didn't vote for Reform rather than Starmer but looks likely to switch back to the Tories if they elect Jenrick as leader
I'm a liberal rightwinger.
My view on housing is I want liberalism. Get the government to back off, cut red tape, and let the market solve the problems.
How is that anything other than right wing liberalism?
The problem is you and Sunak and May and other Conservatives want rightwing illiberalism.
You are about as rightwing as Ed Davey, except on housing where you make even the average developer look like a NIMBY!
I'm much more right wing on free market economics than Ed Davey and the average developer is a NIMBY.
The developers are cossetted by our planning permission system which means that Barratt Homes can know they have permission to build but competitors do not, so they can dribble out homes at a rate that suits their bottom line.
I want to smash the oligopoly of developers by liberalising in a right wing free market way our housing so that anyone who wants to build a home can do so without asking for permission from the state first.
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Inciting or threatening violence is a crime in every country. That's not ridiculous.
Free speech doesn't give you a right to threaten others with guns.
He typed an EMOJI on a family Facebook chat
Do you want the state to go through all of your messages, WhatsApps, emails, Youtube comments, letters and posts, and find a dubious emoji or two, which they interpret in the worst possible light, and then slam you in jail?
On Facebook on a thread that seems to have been visible to the general public..
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Inciting or threatening violence is a crime in every country. That's not ridiculous.
Free speech doesn't give you a right to threaten others with guns.
He typed an EMOJI on a family Facebook chat
Do you want the state to go through all of your messages, WhatsApps, emails, Youtube comments, letters and posts, and find a dubious emoji or two, which they interpret in the worst possible light, and then slam you in jail?
...The FTSE 100 owner of the Drax power plant made profits of £500m over the first half of this year, helped by biomass subsidies of almost £400m over this period. It handed its shareholders a windfall of £300m for the first half of the year...
There's a potential spending cut, right there.
..The government is considering the company’s request for billpayers to foot the cost of supporting its power plant beyond the subsidy scheme’s deadline in 2027 so it can keep burning wood for power until the end of the decade...
Just no.
Drax's clever switch to American wood pellets (which I deplore in principle) is the only thing that has allowed it to stay open, and by extension keep the UK's lights on. Condemning it is remarkably stupid.
Biomass amount to about 6% of UK generation. It's eminently replaceable.
Subsidising dead end tech - and outsize profits to its owners - is remarkably stupid.
It is a subsidy that happens to support reliable power that isn't wind, season, sun, or time of day reliant - that's immensely valuable to the grid for anyone who isn't a crazed loon.
While that's true... the vast majority of the biomass that is burnt in the UK does not come from the UK. Most is wood pellets from the US, with a smaller share coming from Europe. There's also a small portion that is avocado pips (yes really) from a nearby cosmetics factory where they are waste product. (I forget which factory; but it uses avocado oil, and Drax takes away the pips for free.)
So we are subsidising the importation of wood to burn. If it was from local forests, and therefore added to energy security, it would be one thing. But paying subsidies to import wood from Georgia and Alabama on big bulk cargo ships seems wasteful to me, especially as the energy density of wood chips is pretty low: you might as well just burn the oil that powers the ship.
It's worse than wasteful; it's economically daft as well.
The subsidy (quite a bit of which ends up in overseas investors pockets) could be far better deployed. And we're planning to turbocharge it, with the addition of CCS.
...The FTSE 100 owner of the Drax power plant made profits of £500m over the first half of this year, helped by biomass subsidies of almost £400m over this period. It handed its shareholders a windfall of £300m for the first half of the year...
There's a potential spending cut, right there.
..The government is considering the company’s request for billpayers to foot the cost of supporting its power plant beyond the subsidy scheme’s deadline in 2027 so it can keep burning wood for power until the end of the decade...
Just no.
Drax's clever switch to American wood pellets (which I deplore in principle) is the only thing that has allowed it to stay open, and by extension keep the UK's lights on. Condemning it is remarkably stupid.
Biomass amount to about 6% of UK generation. It's eminently replaceable.
Subsidising dead end tech - and outsize profits to its owners - is remarkably stupid.
It is a subsidy that happens to support reliable power that isn't wind, season, sun, or time of day reliant - that's immensely valuable to the grid for anyone who isn't a crazed loon.
While that's true... the vast majority of the biomass that is burnt in the UK does not come from the UK. Most is wood pellets from the US, with a smaller share coming from Europe. There's also a small portion that is avocado pips (yes really) from a nearby cosmetics factory where they are waste product. (I forget which factory; but it uses avocado oil, and Drax takes away the pips for free.)
So we are subsidising the importation of wood to burn. If it was from local forests, and therefore added to energy security, it would be one thing. But paying subsidies to import wood from Georgia and Alabama on big bulk cargo ships seems wasteful to me, especially as the energy density of wood chips is pretty low: you might as well just burn the oil that powers the ship.
I couldn't agree with you more. If it were up to me, I'd still burn British coal in it - it is no more than Germany does, and I don’t see anyone here ripping into Germany every day for their crimes against the climate. However, given the legislative environment we face, I support Drax's move because their survival protects other areas of the economy from further damage.
I would also like there to be a many more incinerators - burning rubbish (safely) seems sensible to me. And again, our civilised continental neighbours do it a lot more than us.
Don't know where you live but burning rubbish for heat and power is a thing.
It was 1992 when the US Secret Service first arrested some for Internet threats against the President. Mouthing off against Clinton on USENET IIRC
The official and legal reaction to an action will always be in proportion to the *result* of an action.
Hence the “make a bomb joke in an airport, got to jail thing”. In the 90s, the PIRA started getting low level helpers to phone in phone bomb threats to airports. Which would shut them down, costing millions.
There was much wailing and appeals to European courts when the little helpers started getting vacations at Club HMG.
So if you stir up a riot via Twatter, they will drop the cost of the riot on you. Whining that “I only typed 20 words” isn’t the point. It’s the end result.
There’s a very, very long list of Americans who said something like “the President is coming to my town next week, I have my gun and my bullet ready”, who found out out that the US Secret Service take every one of these online threats seriously, turning up and imprisoning people during the visit of the VIP, only letting them go once their principal was wheels up out of the city.
People say this, but then we had the Trump shooting where they were told about a disaffected teenagers out with a rifle and their response was decidedly tepid.
Are you sure that story about the secret service is true, or is it a fable based on it happening somewhere, once?
Oh no, the USSS have always been watching social media very closely, almost every city one of their VIPs goes to, has an idiot who say something stupid on Facebook and is really surprised when the Secret Service actually turns up.
The failure at the Trump rally was a different failure, of basic physical security at a speech venue.
They certainly do. At least Starmer hasn't yet ordered the police to shoot dead in their homes those making offensive or threatening tweets yet!
'An armed Utah man accused of making violent threats against President Joe Biden was shot and killed by FBI agents hours before the president landed in the state Wednesday, authorities said. Special agents were trying to serve a warrant on the home of Craig Deleeuw Robertson in Provo, south of Salt Lake City, when the shooting happened at 6:15 a.m., the FBI said in a statement.
It was 1992 when the US Secret Service first arrested some for Internet threats against the President. Mouthing off against Clinton on USENET IIRC
The official and legal reaction to an action will always be in proportion to the *result* of an action.
Hence the “make a bomb joke in an airport, got to jail thing”. In the 90s, the PIRA started getting low level helpers to phone in phone bomb threats to airports. Which would shut them down, costing millions.
There was much wailing and appeals to European courts when the little helpers started getting vacations at Club HMG.
So if you stir up a riot via Twatter, they will drop the cost of the riot on you. Whining that “I only typed 20 words” isn’t the point. It’s the end result.
There’s a very, very long list of Americans who said something like “the President is coming to my town next week, I have my gun and my bullet ready”, who found out out that the US Secret Service take every one of these online threats seriously, turning up and imprisoning people during the visit of the VIP, only letting them go once their principal was wheels up out of the city.
People say this, but then we had the Trump shooting where they were told about a disaffected teenagers out with a rifle and their response was decidedly tepid.
Are you sure that story about the secret service is true, or is it a fable based on it happening somewhere, once?
Oh no, the USSS have always been watching social media very closely, almost every city one of their VIPs goes to, has an idiot who say something stupid on Facebook and is really surprised when the Secret Service actually turns up.
The failure at the Trump rally was a different failure, of basic physical security at a speech venue.
The guy getting done by the Secret Service was a bit of a thing back then (1992 or might have been 1993) - lots of people were arguing about it.
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
That is stretching encouraging violent behaviour somewhat, you might argue it was grossly offensive to the police in contravention of the Malicious Communications Act but that is it
All those people applauding the cops and courts for putting a guy in jail for a private emoji in a family Facebook chat should thinK, what happens if next time a hard right government gets in, and they apply the same rigour to any of your texts, emails, emojis, whatever, that they deem unpatriotic or subversive in any way? And they lock you up? How could you complain?
THINK BEFORE YOU THINK
We are turning into a shit version of North Korea, right now, right here, and people are cheering it on, not imagining how one day it might come back to bite THEM
...The FTSE 100 owner of the Drax power plant made profits of £500m over the first half of this year, helped by biomass subsidies of almost £400m over this period. It handed its shareholders a windfall of £300m for the first half of the year...
There's a potential spending cut, right there.
..The government is considering the company’s request for billpayers to foot the cost of supporting its power plant beyond the subsidy scheme’s deadline in 2027 so it can keep burning wood for power until the end of the decade...
Just no.
Drax's clever switch to American wood pellets (which I deplore in principle) is the only thing that has allowed it to stay open, and by extension keep the UK's lights on. Condemning it is remarkably stupid.
Biomass amount to about 6% of UK generation. It's eminently replaceable.
Subsidising dead end tech - and outsize profits to its owners - is remarkably stupid.
It is a subsidy that happens to support reliable power that isn't wind, season, sun, or time of day reliant - that's immensely valuable to the grid for anyone who isn't a crazed loon.
While that's true... the vast majority of the biomass that is burnt in the UK does not come from the UK. Most is wood pellets from the US, with a smaller share coming from Europe. There's also a small portion that is avocado pips (yes really) from a nearby cosmetics factory where they are waste product. (I forget which factory; but it uses avocado oil, and Drax takes away the pips for free.)
So we are subsidising the importation of wood to burn. If it was from local forests, and therefore added to energy security, it would be one thing. But paying subsidies to import wood from Georgia and Alabama on big bulk cargo ships seems wasteful to me, especially as the energy density of wood chips is pretty low: you might as well just burn the oil that powers the ship.
I couldn't agree with you more. If it were up to me, I'd still burn British coal in it - it is no more than Germany does, and I don’t see anyone here ripping into Germany every day for their crimes against the climate. However, given the legislative environment we face, I support Drax's move because their survival protects other areas of the economy from further damage.
I would also like there to be a many more incinerators - burning rubbish (safely) seems sensible to me. And again, our civilised continental neighbours do it a lot more than us.
Here's the thing: German brown coal (lignite) is really cheap. They literally strip the topsoil (overburden) up and dig it up with diggers. The marginal cost of production of a tonne of lignite is something like €12.
British coal, while more energy dense, involves digging holes in the ground and sending men down them to extract coal with equipment. Your marginal cost per tonne is going to be at least 10x that of lignite, and maybe a lot more. Not to mention the fact that you then need to get the coal to the power station.
German coal is competitive for electricity production. British coal is not.
LOL, they have no way of actually getting their money back, and the ridiculous six-figure pension for life isn’t going anywhere either.
There do seem to be conflicting accounts from the top of the BBC about whether Huw Edwards had kept them in the picture. £200,000 is not even a rounding error in the BBC's accounts so this looks like cheap theatre to keep Lisa Nandy and the tabloids at bay.
I'm not sure I approve of the Stalinist removal of Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Huw Edwards etc. from historical content, but the BBC not only paying Edwards after he had been charged and giving him a 40 grand annual pay rise too is an absurdity. If I was Edwards I'd tell the BBC to do one.
What the Huw Edwards salary debacle has demonstrated is the BBC are paying, through the ranks talent, far too much. There are some real no marks on £200,000, £300,000, £500,000 salaries simply for reading the news. Another problem is a £450,000 salary wasn't unique to a former National Treasures like Edwards. Utter w**k like Kuenssberg and Fiona Bruce are also earning those figures. In Kuenssberg's case for an hour of airtime a week. Cut them all back to no more than the salary of the PM. If they don't like it they can f*** off to GMB!
The BBC salaries in news and radio always made no sense at all. They should be bringing up young ‘talent’, not keeping the same people for decades and paying them massive salaries. If they want the kudos they can work for the BBC, if they want the money they can work for ITV, C4, or Sky.
BBC salaries make sense because they are in a market for talent. It is funny watching some who claim to be Conservatives, and to be supporters of free markets, jump through hoops to deny this. Worse, I'm not even sure they understand it. If the BBC wants the best, there's a price.
Now, I might think Man City overpay Haaland and that Anthony could score as many goals, but that is a different argument. As it happens, I do not rate Huw Edwards but cannot understand the scorn poured over Fiona Bruce each week. Gary Lineker is head and shoulders above Alan Shearer as a pundit.
ETA In radio it is even easier. Chris Evans was worth more than Terry Wogan because he got more listeners.
If they were in a market for talent then salaries would be 90% lower.
The market rate is that such that supply and demand are in equilibrium. It is not writing a blank cheque to the highest bidder, backed by imprisoning people if they won't make payments even if they don't consume your services.
A free market means that if there are 3 vacancies for say Match of the Day and the most expensive person for the job will only take the job for £500k and the third-cheapest person (with the requisite skills) will only take the job for £30k, then the free market rate is £30k.
I think the BBC is trying, not always successfully, to produce the best programming across the board given the budget it has available. It will always be outbid for showing the most popular football games, so it can try to compensate by having the best commentary. I think Lineker's salary can easily be justified on that basis.
Huw Edwards, even disregarding his recently discovered criminality, not so much.
It does not need "the best", especially when it is funded by law and not by subscribers or advertising.
I suspect most people who watch Match of the Day do so because they want to watch the football highlights, not specifically Lineker. And if it is specifically Lineker, and not a public broadcasting of the football highlights, then fund that with advertising or subscribers.
The market rate is the rate at which supply and demand are in equilibrium, not the rate demanded by "the best". If someone else will do it cheaper, and they have the requisite skills (or can be trained to get them), that's the market rate.
The BBC will be looking at their programming in the round where football is seen as an important piece. They can't afford to show full games because they are always outbid so Match of the Day is all they have got. People switch into that programme because of Lineker. Dedicating 0.02% of their budget to Lineker so they can stay in the football broadcasting space is money well spent for the BBC.
Almost no-one is tuning into MoTD because of Lineker. They’re tuning in because of the football highlights.
Do you really NEED that thought? Is it an *acceptable* thought? Might your unspoken and silent opinion cause offence to someone with a protected characteristic anywhere in the world, or anyone else, in history, ever? Or could your time be better spent not thinking at all, and let US do the thinking for you?
Tell us YOUR half-formed thoughts first, here at the Home Office, before you think them
THINK BEFORE YOU THINK
36 days since Leon voted for Labour and here we are folks.
The torment. The self-loathing.
It's remarkable how quick people were to forget what a Labour government is actually LIKE, so blinded were they by intense loathing for the Tories. I remember it always being brought back to that when I raised any of it before the election. But, absolutely none of it should come as any surprise. This is what they do.
We had all of it 14 years ago, and they should all have remembered that - were they thinking clearly - to make a rational and balanced choice based on the two realistic options before them.
Yes, and still voting for Starmer's Labour was a better option than Sunak's Tories. Even for this right-winger.
Which says more about Sunak's Tories than Starmer's Labour.
Hopefully now the Tories can sort themselves out in opposition, don't become a Farage tribute act, and become worthy of voting for again.
You aren't a rightwinger, you are a liberal centrist except on housing where you want a building free for all.
Leon however is a rightwinger who probably regrets he didn't vote for Reform rather than Starmer but looks likely to switch back to the Tories if they elect Jenrick as leader
I'm a liberal rightwinger.
My view on housing is I want liberalism. Get the government to back off, cut red tape, and let the market solve the problems.
How is that anything other than right wing liberalism?
The problem is you and Sunak and May and other Conservatives want rightwing illiberalism.
You are about as rightwing as Ed Davey, except on housing where you make even the average developer look like a NIMBY!
I'm much more right wing on free market economics than Ed Davey and the average developer is a NIMBY.
The developers are cossetted by our planning permission system which means that Barratt Homes can know they have permission to build but competitors do not, so they can dribble out homes at a rate that suits their bottom line.
I want to smash the oligopoly of developers by liberalising in a right wing free market way our housing so that anyone who wants to build a home can do so without asking for permission from the state first.
Yes you want to build all over the greenbelt, I know
LOL, they have no way of actually getting their money back, and the ridiculous six-figure pension for life isn’t going anywhere either.
There do seem to be conflicting accounts from the top of the BBC about whether Huw Edwards had kept them in the picture. £200,000 is not even a rounding error in the BBC's accounts so this looks like cheap theatre to keep Lisa Nandy and the tabloids at bay.
I'm not sure I approve of the Stalinist removal of Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Huw Edwards etc. from historical content, but the BBC not only paying Edwards after he had been charged and giving him a 40 grand annual pay rise too is an absurdity. If I was Edwards I'd tell the BBC to do one.
What the Huw Edwards salary debacle has demonstrated is the BBC are paying, through the ranks talent, far too much. There are some real no marks on £200,000, £300,000, £500,000 salaries simply for reading the news. Another problem is a £450,000 salary wasn't unique to a former National Treasures like Edwards. Utter w**k like Kuenssberg and Fiona Bruce are also earning those figures. In Kuenssberg's case for an hour of airtime a week. Cut them all back to no more than the salary of the PM. If they don't like it they can f*** off to GMB!
The BBC salaries in news and radio always made no sense at all. They should be bringing up young ‘talent’, not keeping the same people for decades and paying them massive salaries. If they want the kudos they can work for the BBC, if they want the money they can work for ITV, C4, or Sky.
BBC salaries make sense because they are in a market for talent. It is funny watching some who claim to be Conservatives, and to be supporters of free markets, jump through hoops to deny this. Worse, I'm not even sure they understand it. If the BBC wants the best, there's a price.
Now, I might think Man City overpay Haaland and that Anthony could score as many goals, but that is a different argument. As it happens, I do not rate Huw Edwards but cannot understand the scorn poured over Fiona Bruce each week. Gary Lineker is head and shoulders above Alan Shearer as a pundit.
ETA In radio it is even easier. Chris Evans was worth more than Terry Wogan because he got more listeners.
If they were in a market for talent then salaries would be 90% lower.
The market rate is that such that supply and demand are in equilibrium. It is not writing a blank cheque to the highest bidder, backed by imprisoning people if they won't make payments even if they don't consume your services.
A free market means that if there are 3 vacancies for say Match of the Day and the most expensive person for the job will only take the job for £500k and the third-cheapest person (with the requisite skills) will only take the job for £30k, then the free market rate is £30k.
I think the BBC is trying, not always successfully, to produce the best programming across the board given the budget it has available. It will always be outbid for showing the most popular football games, so it can try to compensate by having the best commentary. I think Lineker's salary can easily be justified on that basis.
Huw Edwards, even disregarding his recently discovered criminality, not so much.
I sort of agree, however take MOTD, Lineker may bring something extra to the table, but does that extra magic amount to what Jermaine Jenas or Mark Chapman (who are also very good) would expect to be paid. I doubt it. Someone compared Lineker to Shearer earlier. I was stunned to see Shearer gets £200,000 to play third fiddle.
Listener favourite Ken Bruce left the BBC, not least because he went unappreciated by management, but also because he was offered better terms. The listener figures went through the floor but does it matter? The BBC are not reliant on Ken Bruce bringing in advertising revenue.
Do you really NEED that thought? Is it an *acceptable* thought? Might your unspoken and silent opinion cause offence to someone with a protected characteristic anywhere in the world, or anyone else, in history, ever? Or could your time be better spent not thinking at all, and let US do the thinking for you?
Tell us YOUR half-formed thoughts first, here at the Home Office, before you think them
THINK BEFORE YOU THINK
36 days since Leon voted for Labour and here we are folks.
The torment. The self-loathing.
It's remarkable how quick people were to forget what a Labour government is actually LIKE, so blinded were they by intense loathing for the Tories. I remember it always being brought back to that when I raised any of it before the election. But, absolutely none of it should come as any surprise. This is what they do.
We had all of it 14 years ago, and they should all have remembered that - were they thinking clearly - to make a rational and balanced choice based on the two realistic options before them.
Yes, and still voting for Starmer's Labour was a better option than Sunak's Tories. Even for this right-winger.
Which says more about Sunak's Tories than Starmer's Labour.
Hopefully now the Tories can sort themselves out in opposition, don't become a Farage tribute act, and become worthy of voting for again.
You aren't a rightwinger, you are a liberal centrist except on housing where you want a building free for all.
Leon however is a rightwinger who probably regrets he didn't vote for Reform rather than Starmer but looks likely to switch back to the Tories if they elect Jenrick as leader
I'm a liberal rightwinger.
My view on housing is I want liberalism. Get the government to back off, cut red tape, and let the market solve the problems.
How is that anything other than right wing liberalism?
The problem is you and Sunak and May and other Conservatives want rightwing illiberalism.
You are about as rightwing as Ed Davey, except on housing where you make even the average developer look like a NIMBY!
I'm much more right wing on free market economics than Ed Davey and the average developer is a NIMBY.
The developers are cossetted by our planning permission system which means that Barratt Homes can know they have permission to build but competitors do not, so they can dribble out homes at a rate that suits their bottom line.
I want to smash the oligopoly of developers by liberalising in a right wing free market way our housing so that anyone who wants to build a home can do so without asking for permission from the state first.
Yes you want to build all over the greenbelt, I know
I am a little perplexed. We have had a week of riots where literal lies have been propagated on TwiX and elsewhere to incite hatred and violence.
We can see how harmful it is to spread malicious shit on social media. Serious crimes can be incited by it and literal crimes are being committed by the people propagating it.
So why is Leon foaming on about some kind of Big Brother reaction from the government? We *need* laws to be upheld, and we should require public figures like Farage and Braverman to be held to account for what they have done.
Because people are actually OK with certain malicious shit.
This isn't necessarily a judgment on them by the way. It is a statement of fact. But it might be worth understanding why people are OK with it.
...The FTSE 100 owner of the Drax power plant made profits of £500m over the first half of this year, helped by biomass subsidies of almost £400m over this period. It handed its shareholders a windfall of £300m for the first half of the year...
There's a potential spending cut, right there.
..The government is considering the company’s request for billpayers to foot the cost of supporting its power plant beyond the subsidy scheme’s deadline in 2027 so it can keep burning wood for power until the end of the decade...
Just no.
Drax's clever switch to American wood pellets (which I deplore in principle) is the only thing that has allowed it to stay open, and by extension keep the UK's lights on. Condemning it is remarkably stupid.
Biomass amount to about 6% of UK generation. It's eminently replaceable.
Subsidising dead end tech - and outsize profits to its owners - is remarkably stupid.
It is a subsidy that happens to support reliable power that isn't wind, season, sun, or time of day reliant - that's immensely valuable to the grid for anyone who isn't a crazed loon.
While that's true... the vast majority of the biomass that is burnt in the UK does not come from the UK. Most is wood pellets from the US, with a smaller share coming from Europe. There's also a small portion that is avocado pips (yes really) from a nearby cosmetics factory where they are waste product. (I forget which factory; but it uses avocado oil, and Drax takes away the pips for free.)
So we are subsidising the importation of wood to burn. If it was from local forests, and therefore added to energy security, it would be one thing. But paying subsidies to import wood from Georgia and Alabama on big bulk cargo ships seems wasteful to me, especially as the energy density of wood chips is pretty low: you might as well just burn the oil that powers the ship.
I couldn't agree with you more. If it were up to me, I'd still burn British coal in it - it is no more than Germany does, and I don’t see anyone here ripping into Germany every day for their crimes against the climate. However, given the legislative environment we face, I support Drax's move because their survival protects other areas of the economy from further damage.
I would also like there to be a many more incinerators - burning rubbish (safely) seems sensible to me. And again, our civilised continental neighbours do it a lot more than us.
Don't know where you live but burning rubbish for heat and power is a thing.
Sorry to be rude, but I made a post that lots replied to earlier and then forgot all about it. Thanks for the replies. Good to know it isn't just me who thinks fresh peas and broad beans are much better than frozen. Not just better, but effectively a completely different vegetable.
In answer to questions:
No we don't have a farm shop locally, which is a shame. As my wife comments this part of Surrey is so posh they don't grow anything in the fields. They just have horses. Sadly that is accurate.
I have not tried red currants as they are so fiddly and stick to blackcurrants. Elderberries are worse but I freeze them in their bunches and then just brush off the frozen berries
Regarding other fruit, yes I have a lot more than I listed. I have strawberries and rhubarb plus a small orchard I guess of apple, pear and plum trees, but they are not as exotic. I do also pick greengages (or such like) in the wild and have one in the hedge of my garden. To be honest it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between some plants in the plum family. I am aware of 3 trees that I would call damsons but the fruit on each are all slightly different.
Re the point on peas and beans catching up with one another no matter when planted. Yep I found that. I planted in 2 - 3 week intervals and they all came at the same time.
Any advice on Raspberries: I am going to give up on Summer Raspberries because the canes always break, probably through fat wood pigeons. So much effort for so little return with all the wire and staking. I always have a very successful Autumn raspberry crop with no effort at all as they require no support.
I plan to dig up my summer raspberries OR if I cut them to the ground in the winter will they become Autumn raspberries. I assume not and I will simply get new growth but no fruit.
John McEnroe = market rate as lots of broadcasters want him during Wimbledon.
Zoe Ball = no commercial broadcaster is going to pay her anything like what the BBC does.
Depends whether she has mates at a commercial broadcaster. Some no-mark commercial radio station in London hired disgraced ex-RTÉ broadcaster Ryan Tubridy because he's good mates with Chris Evans.
All those people applauding the cops and courts for putting a guy in jail for a private emoji in a family Facebook chat should thinK, what happens if next time a hard right government gets in, and they apply the same rigour to any of your texts, emails, emojis, whatever, that they deem unpatriotic or subversive in any way? And they lock you up? How could you complain?
THINK BEFORE YOU THINK
We are turning into a shit version of North Korea, right now, right here, and people are cheering it on, not imagining how one day it might come back to bite THEM
Where's your evidence that it was a private family Facebook chat? It looks like Cumbria Police posted about the dispersal order and he replied to the Police account with the shooting dark-skinned people emojis.
I'll be doing it tonight with a beer. Barbecue beef flavour. No other flavour works for some reason - which is odd because that's not the case with crisps.
Do they still do a sour cream and chive? that was quite nice.
Ah that's a new one on me. I'd be willing to give it a go but without high hopes. Apols for going a bit Pulp Fiction but it's something about the shape and texture of a hula hoop that lends itself only to barbecue beef. Eg I actually prefer lots of crisps flavours to barbecue beef (in fact I'd rank barbecue beef quite low down when it comes to crisps) yet those very same flavours transposed to hula hoops don't appeal at all.
Have you ever thought of a weekend in Bruges? It's not for everyone, it's a bit of a travel challenge, but I think you'd enjoy it
"Maybe that's what hell is, the entire rest of eternity spent in fucking Bruges."
...The FTSE 100 owner of the Drax power plant made profits of £500m over the first half of this year, helped by biomass subsidies of almost £400m over this period. It handed its shareholders a windfall of £300m for the first half of the year...
There's a potential spending cut, right there.
..The government is considering the company’s request for billpayers to foot the cost of supporting its power plant beyond the subsidy scheme’s deadline in 2027 so it can keep burning wood for power until the end of the decade...
Just no.
Drax's clever switch to American wood pellets (which I deplore in principle) is the only thing that has allowed it to stay open, and by extension keep the UK's lights on. Condemning it is remarkably stupid.
Biomass amount to about 6% of UK generation. It's eminently replaceable.
Subsidising dead end tech - and outsize profits to its owners - is remarkably stupid.
It is a subsidy that happens to support reliable power that isn't wind, season, sun, or time of day reliant - that's immensely valuable to the grid for anyone who isn't a crazed loon.
While that's true... the vast majority of the biomass that is burnt in the UK does not come from the UK. Most is wood pellets from the US, with a smaller share coming from Europe. There's also a small portion that is avocado pips (yes really) from a nearby cosmetics factory where they are waste product. (I forget which factory; but it uses avocado oil, and Drax takes away the pips for free.)
So we are subsidising the importation of wood to burn. If it was from local forests, and therefore added to energy security, it would be one thing. But paying subsidies to import wood from Georgia and Alabama on big bulk cargo ships seems wasteful to me, especially as the energy density of wood chips is pretty low: you might as well just burn the oil that powers the ship.
I couldn't agree with you more. If it were up to me, I'd still burn British coal in it - it is no more than Germany does, and I don’t see anyone here ripping into Germany every day for their crimes against the climate. However, given the legislative environment we face, I support Drax's move because their survival protects other areas of the economy from further damage.
I would also like there to be a many more incinerators - burning rubbish (safely) seems sensible to me. And again, our civilised continental neighbours do it a lot more than us.
Here's the thing: German brown coal (lignite) is really cheap. They literally strip the topsoil (overburden) up and dig it up with diggers. The marginal cost of production of a tonne of lignite is something like €12.
British coal, while more energy dense, involves digging holes in the ground and sending men down them to extract coal with equipment. Your marginal cost per tonne is going to be at least 10x that of lignite, and maybe a lot more. Not to mention the fact that you then need to get the coal to the power station.
German coal is competitive for electricity production. British coal is not.
I have seen this former (worked out) lignite pit in Germany. All of the stuff in the photo is the hole. It's enormous. Huge crawler diggers were used. The British equivalent, in size and excavation, would be the brickworks in Bedfordshire and near Peterborough.
LOL, they have no way of actually getting their money back, and the ridiculous six-figure pension for life isn’t going anywhere either.
There do seem to be conflicting accounts from the top of the BBC about whether Huw Edwards had kept them in the picture. £200,000 is not even a rounding error in the BBC's accounts so this looks like cheap theatre to keep Lisa Nandy and the tabloids at bay.
I'm not sure I approve of the Stalinist removal of Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Huw Edwards etc. from historical content, but the BBC not only paying Edwards after he had been charged and giving him a 40 grand annual pay rise too is an absurdity. If I was Edwards I'd tell the BBC to do one.
What the Huw Edwards salary debacle has demonstrated is the BBC are paying, through the ranks talent, far too much. There are some real no marks on £200,000, £300,000, £500,000 salaries simply for reading the news. Another problem is a £450,000 salary wasn't unique to a former National Treasures like Edwards. Utter w**k like Kuenssberg and Fiona Bruce are also earning those figures. In Kuenssberg's case for an hour of airtime a week. Cut them all back to no more than the salary of the PM. If they don't like it they can f*** off to GMB!
The BBC salaries in news and radio always made no sense at all. They should be bringing up young ‘talent’, not keeping the same people for decades and paying them massive salaries. If they want the kudos they can work for the BBC, if they want the money they can work for ITV, C4, or Sky.
BBC salaries make sense because they are in a market for talent. It is funny watching some who claim to be Conservatives, and to be supporters of free markets, jump through hoops to deny this. Worse, I'm not even sure they understand it. If the BBC wants the best, there's a price.
Now, I might think Man City overpay Haaland and that Anthony could score as many goals, but that is a different argument. As it happens, I do not rate Huw Edwards but cannot understand the scorn poured over Fiona Bruce each week. Gary Lineker is head and shoulders above Alan Shearer as a pundit.
ETA In radio it is even easier. Chris Evans was worth more than Terry Wogan because he got more listeners.
If they were in a market for talent then salaries would be 90% lower.
The market rate is that such that supply and demand are in equilibrium. It is not writing a blank cheque to the highest bidder, backed by imprisoning people if they won't make payments even if they don't consume your services.
A free market means that if there are 3 vacancies for say Match of the Day and the most expensive person for the job will only take the job for £500k and the third-cheapest person (with the requisite skills) will only take the job for £30k, then the free market rate is £30k.
I think the BBC is trying, not always successfully, to produce the best programming across the board given the budget it has available. It will always be outbid for showing the most popular football games, so it can try to compensate by having the best commentary. I think Lineker's salary can easily be justified on that basis.
Huw Edwards, even disregarding his recently discovered criminality, not so much.
I sort of agree, however take MOTD, Lineker may bring something extra to the table, but does that extra magic amount to what Jermaine Jenas or Mark Chapman (who are also very good) would expect to be paid. I doubt it. Someone compared Lineker to Shearer earlier. I was stunned to see Shearer gets £200,000 to play third fiddle.
Listener favourite Ken Bruce left the BBC, not least because he went unappreciated by management, but also because he was offered better terms. The listener figures went through the floor but does it matter? The BBC are not reliant on Ken Bruce bringing in advertising revenue.
The BBC assess Lineker to be worth it and I think we agree they are correct to assess on this basis. The question is whether they assess correctly. I suspect they do for Lineker, but not others. But what would I know about this?
I'll be doing it tonight with a beer. Barbecue beef flavour. No other flavour works for some reason - which is odd because that's not the case with crisps.
Do they still do a sour cream and chive? that was quite nice.
Ah that's a new one on me. I'd be willing to give it a go but without high hopes. Apols for going a bit Pulp Fiction but it's something about the shape and texture of a hula hoop that lends itself only to barbecue beef. Eg I actually prefer lots of crisps flavours to barbecue beef (in fact I'd rank barbecue beef quite low down when it comes to crisps) yet those very same flavours transposed to hula hoops don't appeal at all.
Have you ever thought of a weekend in Bruges? It's not for everyone, it's a bit of a travel challenge, but I think you'd enjoy it
"Maybe that's what hell is, the entire rest of eternity spent in fucking Bruges."
All those people applauding the cops and courts for putting a guy in jail for a private emoji in a family Facebook chat should thinK, what happens if next time a hard right government gets in, and they apply the same rigour to any of your texts, emails, emojis, whatever, that they deem unpatriotic or subversive in any way? And they lock you up? How could you complain?
THINK BEFORE YOU THINK
We are turning into a shit version of North Korea, right now, right here, and people are cheering it on, not imagining how one day it might come back to bite THEM
Where's your evidence that it was a private family Facebook chat? It looks like Cumbria Police posted about the dispersal order and he replied to the Police account with the shooting dark-skinned people emojis.
I'm not even going to pursure this argument, as I shall possibly lose my temper and likely yield to despair
The sun is shining. I shall have another coffee, and a nice walk in the park. Later
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Are you protesting at these convictions because in moments of total inebriation you are prone to, shall we say, unfortunate narratives?
I believe Farage's (bullshit) intervention after those lovely and wholly innocent little girls were murdered, played a not insignificant part in what came next.
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Inciting or threatening violence is a crime in every country. That's not ridiculous.
Free speech doesn't give you a right to threaten others with guns.
He typed an EMOJI on a family Facebook chat
Do you want the state to go through all of your messages, WhatsApps, emails, Youtube comments, letters and posts, and find a dubious emoji or two, which they interpret in the worst possible light, and then slam you in jail?
I'd put it differently. I do not want to live in a society where somebody can post "filthy bastards" plus an emoji of a dark face and a gun and be smugly confident that there is no way they'll get into trouble for it.
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Christ you’re thick, see you believe any old shit from Twitter as the original story doesn’t contain a link.
When you look at the story the chap has 13 convictions in the past.
But district judge John Temperley said he did not accept the comments and emojis were directed at the police.
"This offence, I’m afraid, has to be viewed in the context of the current civil unrest up and down this country. And I’ve no doubt at all that your post is connected to that wider picture," Mr Temperley said.
"I’ve read in the case summary of the comments you made on arrest which clearly demonstrate to me that there was a racial element to the messaging and the posting of these emojis."
Sorry to be rude, but I made a post that lots replied to earlier and then forgot all about it. Thanks for the replies. Good to know it isn't just me who thinks fresh peas and broad beans are much better than frozen. Not just better, but effectively a completely different vegetable.
In answer to questions:
No we don't have a farm shop locally, which is a shame. As my wife comments this part of Surrey is so posh they don't grow anything in the fields. They just have horses. Sadly that is accurate.
I have not tried red currants as they are so fiddly and stick to blackcurrants. Elderberries are worse but I freeze them in their bunches and then just brush off the frozen berries
Regarding other fruit, yes I have a lot more than I listed. I have strawberries and rhubarb plus a small orchard I guess of apple, pear and plum trees, but they are not as exotic. I do also pick greengages (or such like) in the wild and have one in the hedge of my garden. To be honest it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between some plants in the plum family. I am aware of 3 trees that I would call damsons but the fruit on each are all slightly different.
Re the point on peas and beans catching up with one another no matter when planted. Yep I found that. I planted in 2 - 3 week intervals and they all came at the same time.
Any advice on Raspberries: I am going to give up on Summer Raspberries because the canes always break, probably through fat wood pigeons. So much effort for so little return with all the wire and staking. I always have a very successful Autumn raspberry crop with no effort at all as they require no support.
I plan to dig up my summer raspberries OR if I cut them to the ground in the winter will they become Autumn raspberries. I assume not and I will simply get new growth but no fruit.
Mushy peas, with scrags and plenty of vinegar. Food of the gods.
On fruit, I've had two peaches so far this year (one in Bordeaux, one here in Dorset) that have been without doubt the tastiest fruit I have ever eaten in my life. The Dorset one was marginally better; as buttery and delicate as Bread and Butter Chardonnay in fruit form.
I mean it’s fun watching a load of young girls playing with their balls, but I have no objective idea of who ‘won’, and most of the girls are too young for any men to be paying too much attention.
Sorry to be rude, but I made a post that lots replied to earlier and then forgot all about it. Thanks for the replies. Good to know it isn't just me who thinks fresh peas and broad beans are much better than frozen. Not just better, but effectively a completely different vegetable.
In answer to questions:
No we don't have a farm shop locally, which is a shame. As my wife comments this part of Surrey is so posh they don't grow anything in the fields. They just have horses. Sadly that is accurate.
I have not tried red currants as they are so fiddly and stick to blackcurrants. Elderberries are worse but I freeze them in their bunches and then just brush off the frozen berries
Regarding other fruit, yes I have a lot more than I listed. I have strawberries and rhubarb plus a small orchard I guess of apple, pear and plum trees, but they are not as exotic. I do also pick greengages (or such like) in the wild and have one in the hedge of my garden. To be honest it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between some plants in the plum family. I am aware of 3 trees that I would call damsons but the fruit on each are all slightly different.
Re the point on peas and beans catching up with one another no matter when planted. Yep I found that. I planted in 2 - 3 week intervals and they all came at the same time.
Any advice on Raspberries: I am going to give up on Summer Raspberries because the canes always break, probably through fat wood pigeons. So much effort for so little return with all the wire and staking. I always have a very successful Autumn raspberry crop with no effort at all as they require no support.
I plan to dig up my summer raspberries OR if I cut them to the ground in the winter will they become Autumn raspberries. I assume not and I will simply get new growth but no fruit.
Mushy peas, with scrags and plenty of vinegar. Food of the gods.
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Christ you’re thick, see you believe any old shit from Twitter as the original story doesn’t contain a link.
When you look at the story the chap has 13 convictions in the past.
But district judge John Temperley said he did not accept the comments and emojis were directed at the police.
"This offence, I’m afraid, has to be viewed in the context of the current civil unrest up and down this country. And I’ve no doubt at all that your post is connected to that wider picture," Mr Temperley said.
"I’ve read in the case summary of the comments you made on arrest which clearly demonstrate to me that there was a racial element to the messaging and the posting of these emojis."
You are a man of great personal faith and integrity, yet you are shilling for an immoral, godless (except for grifting bibles) sex predator and rapist (as confirmed by a New York civil court) and a convicted felon and scoundrel (as confirmed in a criminal court).
LOL, they have no way of actually getting their money back, and the ridiculous six-figure pension for life isn’t going anywhere either.
There do seem to be conflicting accounts from the top of the BBC about whether Huw Edwards had kept them in the picture. £200,000 is not even a rounding error in the BBC's accounts so this looks like cheap theatre to keep Lisa Nandy and the tabloids at bay.
I'm not sure I approve of the Stalinist removal of Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Huw Edwards etc. from historical content, but the BBC not only paying Edwards after he had been charged and giving him a 40 grand annual pay rise too is an absurdity. If I was Edwards I'd tell the BBC to do one.
What the Huw Edwards salary debacle has demonstrated is the BBC are paying, through the ranks talent, far too much. There are some real no marks on £200,000, £300,000, £500,000 salaries simply for reading the news. Another problem is a £450,000 salary wasn't unique to a former National Treasures like Edwards. Utter w**k like Kuenssberg and Fiona Bruce are also earning those figures. In Kuenssberg's case for an hour of airtime a week. Cut them all back to no more than the salary of the PM. If they don't like it they can f*** off to GMB!
The BBC salaries in news and radio always made no sense at all. They should be bringing up young ‘talent’, not keeping the same people for decades and paying them massive salaries. If they want the kudos they can work for the BBC, if they want the money they can work for ITV, C4, or Sky.
BBC salaries make sense because they are in a market for talent. It is funny watching some who claim to be Conservatives, and to be supporters of free markets, jump through hoops to deny this. Worse, I'm not even sure they understand it. If the BBC wants the best, there's a price.
Now, I might think Man City overpay Haaland and that Anthony could score as many goals, but that is a different argument. As it happens, I do not rate Huw Edwards but cannot understand the scorn poured over Fiona Bruce each week. Gary Lineker is head and shoulders above Alan Shearer as a pundit.
ETA In radio it is even easier. Chris Evans was worth more than Terry Wogan because he got more listeners.
If they were in a market for talent then salaries would be 90% lower.
The market rate is that such that supply and demand are in equilibrium. It is not writing a blank cheque to the highest bidder, backed by imprisoning people if they won't make payments even if they don't consume your services.
A free market means that if there are 3 vacancies for say Match of the Day and the most expensive person for the job will only take the job for £500k and the third-cheapest person (with the requisite skills) will only take the job for £30k, then the free market rate is £30k.
I think the BBC is trying, not always successfully, to produce the best programming across the board given the budget it has available. It will always be outbid for showing the most popular football games, so it can try to compensate by having the best commentary. I think Lineker's salary can easily be justified on that basis.
Huw Edwards, even disregarding his recently discovered criminality, not so much.
I sort of agree, however take MOTD, Lineker may bring something extra to the table, but does that extra magic amount to what Jermaine Jenas or Mark Chapman (who are also very good) would expect to be paid. I doubt it. Someone compared Lineker to Shearer earlier. I was stunned to see Shearer gets £200,000 to play third fiddle.
Listener favourite Ken Bruce left the BBC, not least because he went unappreciated by management, but also because he was offered better terms. The listener figures went through the floor but does it matter? The BBC are not reliant on Ken Bruce bringing in advertising revenue.
For many of these pundits it's all about keeping their public profile figh so they get side gigs, after dinner speaking engagements etc.
Sorry to be rude, but I made a post that lots replied to earlier and then forgot all about it. Thanks for the replies. Good to know it isn't just me who thinks fresh peas and broad beans are much better than frozen. Not just better, but effectively a completely different vegetable.
In answer to questions:
No we don't have a farm shop locally, which is a shame. As my wife comments this part of Surrey is so posh they don't grow anything in the fields. They just have horses. Sadly that is accurate.
I have not tried red currants as they are so fiddly and stick to blackcurrants. Elderberries are worse but I freeze them in their bunches and then just brush off the frozen berries
Regarding other fruit, yes I have a lot more than I listed. I have strawberries and rhubarb plus a small orchard I guess of apple, pear and plum trees, but they are not as exotic. I do also pick greengages (or such like) in the wild and have one in the hedge of my garden. To be honest it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between some plants in the plum family. I am aware of 3 trees that I would call damsons but the fruit on each are all slightly different.
Re the point on peas and beans catching up with one another no matter when planted. Yep I found that. I planted in 2 - 3 week intervals and they all came at the same time.
Any advice on Raspberries: I am going to give up on Summer Raspberries because the canes always break, probably through fat wood pigeons. So much effort for so little return with all the wire and staking. I always have a very successful Autumn raspberry crop with no effort at all as they require no support.
I plan to dig up my summer raspberries OR if I cut them to the ground in the winter will they become Autumn raspberries. I assume not and I will simply get new growth but no fruit.
Mushy peas, with scrags and plenty of vinegar. Food of the gods.
Sadly unavailable in Los Angeles.
You'll have to make do with guacamole and balsamic flavoured tortilla chips.
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Christ you’re thick, see you believe any old shit from Twitter as the original story doesn’t contain a link.
When you look at the story the chap has 13 convictions in the past.
But district judge John Temperley said he did not accept the comments and emojis were directed at the police.
"This offence, I’m afraid, has to be viewed in the context of the current civil unrest up and down this country. And I’ve no doubt at all that your post is connected to that wider picture," Mr Temperley said.
"I’ve read in the case summary of the comments you made on arrest which clearly demonstrate to me that there was a racial element to the messaging and the posting of these emojis."
You are a man of great personal faith and integrity, yet you are shilling for an immoral, godless (except for grifting bibles) sex predator and rapist (as confirmed by a New York civil court) and a convicted felon and scoundrel (as confirmed in a criminal court).
How can you sleep at night?
Doesn’t matter, Harris is much worse as she supported the Duchess of Sussex against the Royals.
You are a man of great personal faith and integrity, yet you are shilling for an immoral, godless (except for grifting bibles) sex predator and rapist (as confirmed by a New York civil court) and a convicted felon and scoundrel (as confirmed in a criminal court).
How can you sleep at night?
Doesn’t matter, Harris is much worse as she supported the Duchess of Sussex against the Royals.
LOL, they have no way of actually getting their money back, and the ridiculous six-figure pension for life isn’t going anywhere either.
There do seem to be conflicting accounts from the top of the BBC about whether Huw Edwards had kept them in the picture. £200,000 is not even a rounding error in the BBC's accounts so this looks like cheap theatre to keep Lisa Nandy and the tabloids at bay.
I'm not sure I approve of the Stalinist removal of Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Huw Edwards etc. from historical content, but the BBC not only paying Edwards after he had been charged and giving him a 40 grand annual pay rise too is an absurdity. If I was Edwards I'd tell the BBC to do one.
What the Huw Edwards salary debacle has demonstrated is the BBC are paying, through the ranks talent, far too much. There are some real no marks on £200,000, £300,000, £500,000 salaries simply for reading the news. Another problem is a £450,000 salary wasn't unique to a former National Treasures like Edwards. Utter w**k like Kuenssberg and Fiona Bruce are also earning those figures. In Kuenssberg's case for an hour of airtime a week. Cut them all back to no more than the salary of the PM. If they don't like it they can f*** off to GMB!
The BBC salaries in news and radio always made no sense at all. They should be bringing up young ‘talent’, not keeping the same people for decades and paying them massive salaries. If they want the kudos they can work for the BBC, if they want the money they can work for ITV, C4, or Sky.
BBC salaries make sense because they are in a market for talent. It is funny watching some who claim to be Conservatives, and to be supporters of free markets, jump through hoops to deny this. Worse, I'm not even sure they understand it. If the BBC wants the best, there's a price.
Now, I might think Man City overpay Haaland and that Anthony could score as many goals, but that is a different argument. As it happens, I do not rate Huw Edwards but cannot understand the scorn poured over Fiona Bruce each week. Gary Lineker is head and shoulders above Alan Shearer as a pundit.
ETA In radio it is even easier. Chris Evans was worth more than Terry Wogan because he got more listeners.
If they were in a market for talent then salaries would be 90% lower.
The market rate is that such that supply and demand are in equilibrium. It is not writing a blank cheque to the highest bidder, backed by imprisoning people if they won't make payments even if they don't consume your services.
A free market means that if there are 3 vacancies for say Match of the Day and the most expensive person for the job will only take the job for £500k and the third-cheapest person (with the requisite skills) will only take the job for £30k, then the free market rate is £30k.
I think the BBC is trying, not always successfully, to produce the best programming across the board given the budget it has available. It will always be outbid for showing the most popular football games, so it can try to compensate by having the best commentary. I think Lineker's salary can easily be justified on that basis.
Huw Edwards, even disregarding his recently discovered criminality, not so much.
I sort of agree, however take MOTD, Lineker may bring something extra to the table, but does that extra magic amount to what Jermaine Jenas or Mark Chapman (who are also very good) would expect to be paid. I doubt it. Someone compared Lineker to Shearer earlier. I was stunned to see Shearer gets £200,000 to play third fiddle.
Listener favourite Ken Bruce left the BBC, not least because he went unappreciated by management, but also because he was offered better terms. The listener figures went through the floor but does it matter? The BBC are not reliant on Ken Bruce bringing in advertising revenue.
The BBC assess Lineker to be worth it and I think we agree they are correct to assess on this basis. The question is whether they assess correctly. I suspect they do for Lineker, but not others. But what would I know about this?
Perhaps as much as Helen Thomas who oversaw the sacking of Steve Wright and essentially the constructive dismissal of Ken Bruce, replacing one with Scott Mills and the other with Vernon Kaye, shedding millions of listeners
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Based on what he actually appears to have done, not your partial reporting, I would say borderline. The judge did explain his rationale for an exemplary sentence. There will be plenty more of these.
You are a man of great personal faith and integrity, yet you are shilling for an immoral, godless (except for grifting bibles) sex predator and rapist (as confirmed by a New York civil court) and a convicted felon and scoundrel (as confirmed in a criminal court).
How can you sleep at night?
I posted a poll, it is what this site does, no comment about Trump at all (it even had Harris 1% ahead)
...The FTSE 100 owner of the Drax power plant made profits of £500m over the first half of this year, helped by biomass subsidies of almost £400m over this period. It handed its shareholders a windfall of £300m for the first half of the year...
There's a potential spending cut, right there.
..The government is considering the company’s request for billpayers to foot the cost of supporting its power plant beyond the subsidy scheme’s deadline in 2027 so it can keep burning wood for power until the end of the decade...
Just no.
Drax's clever switch to American wood pellets (which I deplore in principle) is the only thing that has allowed it to stay open, and by extension keep the UK's lights on. Condemning it is remarkably stupid.
Biomass amount to about 6% of UK generation. It's eminently replaceable.
Subsidising dead end tech - and outsize profits to its owners - is remarkably stupid.
It is a subsidy that happens to support reliable power that isn't wind, season, sun, or time of day reliant - that's immensely valuable to the grid for anyone who isn't a crazed loon.
While that's true... the vast majority of the biomass that is burnt in the UK does not come from the UK. Most is wood pellets from the US, with a smaller share coming from Europe. There's also a small portion that is avocado pips (yes really) from a nearby cosmetics factory where they are waste product. (I forget which factory; but it uses avocado oil, and Drax takes away the pips for free.)
So we are subsidising the importation of wood to burn. If it was from local forests, and therefore added to energy security, it would be one thing. But paying subsidies to import wood from Georgia and Alabama on big bulk cargo ships seems wasteful to me, especially as the energy density of wood chips is pretty low: you might as well just burn the oil that powers the ship.
I couldn't agree with you more. If it were up to me, I'd still burn British coal in it - it is no more than Germany does, and I don’t see anyone here ripping into Germany every day for their crimes against the climate. However, given the legislative environment we face, I support Drax's move because their survival protects other areas of the economy from further damage.
I would also like there to be a many more incinerators - burning rubbish (safely) seems sensible to me. And again, our civilised continental neighbours do it a lot more than us.
Here's the thing: German brown coal (lignite) is really cheap. They literally strip the topsoil (overburden) up and dig it up with diggers. The marginal cost of production of a tonne of lignite is something like €12.
British coal, while more energy dense, involves digging holes in the ground and sending men down them to extract coal with equipment. Your marginal cost per tonne is going to be at least 10x that of lignite, and maybe a lot more. Not to mention the fact that you then need to get the coal to the power station.
German coal is competitive for electricity production. British coal is not.
I have seen this former (worked out) lignite pit in Germany. All of the stuff in the photo is the hole. It's enormous. Huge crawler diggers were used. The British equivalent, in size and excavation, would be the brickworks in Bedfordshire and near Peterborough.
Brown coal is one of the most polluting fossil fuel sources around. Burning lignite generates more CO2 emissions than hard coal, and between three and seven times more than gas.
It also realeases a huge amount of NO2 and SO2, producing acid rain which has stripped that part of central Europe of most of its forest cover.
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Based on what he actually appears to have done, not your partial reporting, I would say borderline. The judge did explain his rationale for an exemplary sentence. There will be plenty more of these.
...The FTSE 100 owner of the Drax power plant made profits of £500m over the first half of this year, helped by biomass subsidies of almost £400m over this period. It handed its shareholders a windfall of £300m for the first half of the year...
There's a potential spending cut, right there.
..The government is considering the company’s request for billpayers to foot the cost of supporting its power plant beyond the subsidy scheme’s deadline in 2027 so it can keep burning wood for power until the end of the decade...
Just no.
Drax's clever switch to American wood pellets (which I deplore in principle) is the only thing that has allowed it to stay open, and by extension keep the UK's lights on. Condemning it is remarkably stupid.
Biomass amount to about 6% of UK generation. It's eminently replaceable.
Subsidising dead end tech - and outsize profits to its owners - is remarkably stupid.
It is a subsidy that happens to support reliable power that isn't wind, season, sun, or time of day reliant - that's immensely valuable to the grid for anyone who isn't a crazed loon.
While that's true... the vast majority of the biomass that is burnt in the UK does not come from the UK. Most is wood pellets from the US, with a smaller share coming from Europe. There's also a small portion that is avocado pips (yes really) from a nearby cosmetics factory where they are waste product. (I forget which factory; but it uses avocado oil, and Drax takes away the pips for free.)
So we are subsidising the importation of wood to burn. If it was from local forests, and therefore added to energy security, it would be one thing. But paying subsidies to import wood from Georgia and Alabama on big bulk cargo ships seems wasteful to me, especially as the energy density of wood chips is pretty low: you might as well just burn the oil that powers the ship.
I couldn't agree with you more. If it were up to me, I'd still burn British coal in it - it is no more than Germany does, and I don’t see anyone here ripping into Germany every day for their crimes against the climate. However, given the legislative environment we face, I support Drax's move because their survival protects other areas of the economy from further damage.
I would also like there to be a many more incinerators - burning rubbish (safely) seems sensible to me. And again, our civilised continental neighbours do it a lot more than us.
Here's the thing: German brown coal (lignite) is really cheap. They literally strip the topsoil (overburden) up and dig it up with diggers. The marginal cost of production of a tonne of lignite is something like €12.
British coal, while more energy dense, involves digging holes in the ground and sending men down them to extract coal with equipment. Your marginal cost per tonne is going to be at least 10x that of lignite, and maybe a lot more. Not to mention the fact that you then need to get the coal to the power station.
German coal is competitive for electricity production. British coal is not.
I have seen this former (worked out) lignite pit in Germany. All of the stuff in the photo is the hole. It's enormous. Huge crawler diggers were used. The British equivalent, in size and excavation, would be the brickworks in Bedfordshire and near Peterborough.
Brown coal is one of the most polluting fossil fuel sources around. Burning lignite generates more CO2 emissions than hard coal, and between three and seven times more than gas.
It also realeases a huge amount of NO2 and SO2, producing acid rain which has stripped that part of central Europe of most of its forest cover.
And we dug so much coal out of the Ruhr Valley that pumps have to operate essentially forever to stop the coalfield flooding with water contaminated with toxic chemicals still in the worked out mines. What a great inheritance to give future generations to sort out.
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Based on what he actually appears to have done, not your partial reporting, I would say borderline. The judge did explain his rationale for an exemplary sentence. There will be plenty more of these.
Message to people: when there's a riot shut up.
As tweeted by the CPS.... The CPS don't want to waste their time prosecuting people who post incitement to violence or racial hatred, hence their warning not to post it
...The FTSE 100 owner of the Drax power plant made profits of £500m over the first half of this year, helped by biomass subsidies of almost £400m over this period. It handed its shareholders a windfall of £300m for the first half of the year...
There's a potential spending cut, right there.
..The government is considering the company’s request for billpayers to foot the cost of supporting its power plant beyond the subsidy scheme’s deadline in 2027 so it can keep burning wood for power until the end of the decade...
Just no.
Drax's clever switch to American wood pellets (which I deplore in principle) is the only thing that has allowed it to stay open, and by extension keep the UK's lights on. Condemning it is remarkably stupid.
Biomass amount to about 6% of UK generation. It's eminently replaceable.
Subsidising dead end tech - and outsize profits to its owners - is remarkably stupid.
It is a subsidy that happens to support reliable power that isn't wind, season, sun, or time of day reliant - that's immensely valuable to the grid for anyone who isn't a crazed loon.
While that's true... the vast majority of the biomass that is burnt in the UK does not come from the UK. Most is wood pellets from the US, with a smaller share coming from Europe. There's also a small portion that is avocado pips (yes really) from a nearby cosmetics factory where they are waste product. (I forget which factory; but it uses avocado oil, and Drax takes away the pips for free.)
So we are subsidising the importation of wood to burn. If it was from local forests, and therefore added to energy security, it would be one thing. But paying subsidies to import wood from Georgia and Alabama on big bulk cargo ships seems wasteful to me, especially as the energy density of wood chips is pretty low: you might as well just burn the oil that powers the ship.
I couldn't agree with you more. If it were up to me, I'd still burn British coal in it - it is no more than Germany does, and I don’t see anyone here ripping into Germany every day for their crimes against the climate. However, given the legislative environment we face, I support Drax's move because their survival protects other areas of the economy from further damage.
I would also like there to be a many more incinerators - burning rubbish (safely) seems sensible to me. And again, our civilised continental neighbours do it a lot more than us.
Here's the thing: German brown coal (lignite) is really cheap. They literally strip the topsoil (overburden) up and dig it up with diggers. The marginal cost of production of a tonne of lignite is something like €12.
British coal, while more energy dense, involves digging holes in the ground and sending men down them to extract coal with equipment. Your marginal cost per tonne is going to be at least 10x that of lignite, and maybe a lot more. Not to mention the fact that you then need to get the coal to the power station.
German coal is competitive for electricity production. British coal is not.
I have seen this former (worked out) lignite pit in Germany. All of the stuff in the photo is the hole. It's enormous. Huge crawler diggers were used. The British equivalent, in size and excavation, would be the brickworks in Bedfordshire and near Peterborough.
Brown coal is one of the most polluting fossil fuel sources around. Burning lignite generates more CO2 emissions than hard coal, and between three and seven times more than gas.
It also realeases a huge amount of NO2 and SO2, producing acid rain which has stripped that part of central Europe of most of its forest cover.
Indeed. But opencast proper black coal pits don't have that issue [edit!] to that same extent and are - as you imply - a better comparison for deep coal.
Not long since there were trains trundling along the NE Edinburgh waterfront to carry imported coal from Leith Docks to Cockenzie Power Station. which had been built to be served by merrygoround trains from deep pits in Lothian.
...The FTSE 100 owner of the Drax power plant made profits of £500m over the first half of this year, helped by biomass subsidies of almost £400m over this period. It handed its shareholders a windfall of £300m for the first half of the year...
There's a potential spending cut, right there.
..The government is considering the company’s request for billpayers to foot the cost of supporting its power plant beyond the subsidy scheme’s deadline in 2027 so it can keep burning wood for power until the end of the decade...
Just no.
Drax's clever switch to American wood pellets (which I deplore in principle) is the only thing that has allowed it to stay open, and by extension keep the UK's lights on. Condemning it is remarkably stupid.
Biomass amount to about 6% of UK generation. It's eminently replaceable.
Subsidising dead end tech - and outsize profits to its owners - is remarkably stupid.
It is a subsidy that happens to support reliable power that isn't wind, season, sun, or time of day reliant - that's immensely valuable to the grid for anyone who isn't a crazed loon.
While that's true... the vast majority of the biomass that is burnt in the UK does not come from the UK. Most is wood pellets from the US, with a smaller share coming from Europe. There's also a small portion that is avocado pips (yes really) from a nearby cosmetics factory where they are waste product. (I forget which factory; but it uses avocado oil, and Drax takes away the pips for free.)
So we are subsidising the importation of wood to burn. If it was from local forests, and therefore added to energy security, it would be one thing. But paying subsidies to import wood from Georgia and Alabama on big bulk cargo ships seems wasteful to me, especially as the energy density of wood chips is pretty low: you might as well just burn the oil that powers the ship.
I couldn't agree with you more. If it were up to me, I'd still burn British coal in it - it is no more than Germany does, and I don’t see anyone here ripping into Germany every day for their crimes against the climate. However, given the legislative environment we face, I support Drax's move because their survival protects other areas of the economy from further damage.
I would also like there to be a many more incinerators - burning rubbish (safely) seems sensible to me. And again, our civilised continental neighbours do it a lot more than us.
Here's the thing: German brown coal (lignite) is really cheap. They literally strip the topsoil (overburden) up and dig it up with diggers. The marginal cost of production of a tonne of lignite is something like €12.
British coal, while more energy dense, involves digging holes in the ground and sending men down them to extract coal with equipment. Your marginal cost per tonne is going to be at least 10x that of lignite, and maybe a lot more. Not to mention the fact that you then need to get the coal to the power station.
German coal is competitive for electricity production. British coal is not.
I have seen this former (worked out) lignite pit in Germany. All of the stuff in the photo is the hole. It's enormous. Huge crawler diggers were used. The British equivalent, in size and excavation, would be the brickworks in Bedfordshire and near Peterborough.
Starting in the late 40s the National Coal Board strip-mined low quality coal around Wentworth Woodhouse as a punishment for the owner for upsetting parts of the then government and against opposition from the owner, the locals, and Sheffield NUM. My understanding is that the restored land is still not great.
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Christ you’re thick, see you believe any old shit from Twitter as the original story doesn’t contain a link.
When you look at the story the chap has 13 convictions in the past.
But district judge John Temperley said he did not accept the comments and emojis were directed at the police.
"This offence, I’m afraid, has to be viewed in the context of the current civil unrest up and down this country. And I’ve no doubt at all that your post is connected to that wider picture," Mr Temperley said.
"I’ve read in the case summary of the comments you made on arrest which clearly demonstrate to me that there was a racial element to the messaging and the posting of these emojis."
LOL, they have no way of actually getting their money back, and the ridiculous six-figure pension for life isn’t going anywhere either.
There do seem to be conflicting accounts from the top of the BBC about whether Huw Edwards had kept them in the picture. £200,000 is not even a rounding error in the BBC's accounts so this looks like cheap theatre to keep Lisa Nandy and the tabloids at bay.
I'm not sure I approve of the Stalinist removal of Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Huw Edwards etc. from historical content, but the BBC not only paying Edwards after he had been charged and giving him a 40 grand annual pay rise too is an absurdity. If I was Edwards I'd tell the BBC to do one.
What the Huw Edwards salary debacle has demonstrated is the BBC are paying, through the ranks talent, far too much. There are some real no marks on £200,000, £300,000, £500,000 salaries simply for reading the news. Another problem is a £450,000 salary wasn't unique to a former National Treasures like Edwards. Utter w**k like Kuenssberg and Fiona Bruce are also earning those figures. In Kuenssberg's case for an hour of airtime a week. Cut them all back to no more than the salary of the PM. If they don't like it they can f*** off to GMB!
The BBC salaries in news and radio always made no sense at all. They should be bringing up young ‘talent’, not keeping the same people for decades and paying them massive salaries. If they want the kudos they can work for the BBC, if they want the money they can work for ITV, C4, or Sky.
BBC salaries make sense because they are in a market for talent. It is funny watching some who claim to be Conservatives, and to be supporters of free markets, jump through hoops to deny this. Worse, I'm not even sure they understand it. If the BBC wants the best, there's a price.
Now, I might think Man City overpay Haaland and that Anthony could score as many goals, but that is a different argument. As it happens, I do not rate Huw Edwards but cannot understand the scorn poured over Fiona Bruce each week. Gary Lineker is head and shoulders above Alan Shearer as a pundit.
ETA In radio it is even easier. Chris Evans was worth more than Terry Wogan because he got more listeners.
If they were in a market for talent then salaries would be 90% lower.
The market rate is that such that supply and demand are in equilibrium. It is not writing a blank cheque to the highest bidder, backed by imprisoning people if they won't make payments even if they don't consume your services.
A free market means that if there are 3 vacancies for say Match of the Day and the most expensive person for the job will only take the job for £500k and the third-cheapest person (with the requisite skills) will only take the job for £30k, then the free market rate is £30k.
I think the BBC is trying, not always successfully, to produce the best programming across the board given the budget it has available. It will always be outbid for showing the most popular football games, so it can try to compensate by having the best commentary. I think Lineker's salary can easily be justified on that basis.
Huw Edwards, even disregarding his recently discovered criminality, not so much.
I sort of agree, however take MOTD, Lineker may bring something extra to the table, but does that extra magic amount to what Jermaine Jenas or Mark Chapman (who are also very good) would expect to be paid. I doubt it. Someone compared Lineker to Shearer earlier. I was stunned to see Shearer gets £200,000 to play third fiddle.
Listener favourite Ken Bruce left the BBC, not least because he went unappreciated by management, but also because he was offered better terms. The listener figures went through the floor but does it matter? The BBC are not reliant on Ken Bruce bringing in advertising revenue.
The BBC assess Lineker to be worth it and I think we agree they are correct to assess on this basis. The question is whether they assess correctly. I suspect they do for Lineker, but not others. But what would I know about this?
Perhaps as much as Helen Thomas who oversaw the sacking of Steve Wright and essentially the constructive dismissal of Ken Bruce, replacing one with Scott Mills and the other with Vernon Kaye, shedding millions of listeners
How much did that cost them in subscriptions, advertising or licence fee revenue?
LOL, they have no way of actually getting their money back, and the ridiculous six-figure pension for life isn’t going anywhere either.
There do seem to be conflicting accounts from the top of the BBC about whether Huw Edwards had kept them in the picture. £200,000 is not even a rounding error in the BBC's accounts so this looks like cheap theatre to keep Lisa Nandy and the tabloids at bay.
I'm not sure I approve of the Stalinist removal of Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Huw Edwards etc. from historical content, but the BBC not only paying Edwards after he had been charged and giving him a 40 grand annual pay rise too is an absurdity. If I was Edwards I'd tell the BBC to do one.
What the Huw Edwards salary debacle has demonstrated is the BBC are paying, through the ranks talent, far too much. There are some real no marks on £200,000, £300,000, £500,000 salaries simply for reading the news. Another problem is a £450,000 salary wasn't unique to a former National Treasures like Edwards. Utter w**k like Kuenssberg and Fiona Bruce are also earning those figures. In Kuenssberg's case for an hour of airtime a week. Cut them all back to no more than the salary of the PM. If they don't like it they can f*** off to GMB!
The BBC salaries in news and radio always made no sense at all. They should be bringing up young ‘talent’, not keeping the same people for decades and paying them massive salaries. If they want the kudos they can work for the BBC, if they want the money they can work for ITV, C4, or Sky.
BBC salaries make sense because they are in a market for talent. It is funny watching some who claim to be Conservatives, and to be supporters of free markets, jump through hoops to deny this. Worse, I'm not even sure they understand it. If the BBC wants the best, there's a price.
Now, I might think Man City overpay Haaland and that Anthony could score as many goals, but that is a different argument. As it happens, I do not rate Huw Edwards but cannot understand the scorn poured over Fiona Bruce each week. Gary Lineker is head and shoulders above Alan Shearer as a pundit.
ETA In radio it is even easier. Chris Evans was worth more than Terry Wogan because he got more listeners.
If they were in a market for talent then salaries would be 90% lower.
The market rate is that such that supply and demand are in equilibrium. It is not writing a blank cheque to the highest bidder, backed by imprisoning people if they won't make payments even if they don't consume your services.
A free market means that if there are 3 vacancies for say Match of the Day and the most expensive person for the job will only take the job for £500k and the third-cheapest person (with the requisite skills) will only take the job for £30k, then the free market rate is £30k.
I think the BBC is trying, not always successfully, to produce the best programming across the board given the budget it has available. It will always be outbid for showing the most popular football games, so it can try to compensate by having the best commentary. I think Lineker's salary can easily be justified on that basis.
Huw Edwards, even disregarding his recently discovered criminality, not so much.
It does not need "the best", especially when it is funded by law and not by subscribers or advertising.
I suspect most people who watch Match of the Day do so because they want to watch the football highlights, not specifically Lineker. And if it is specifically Lineker, and not a public broadcasting of the football highlights, then fund that with advertising or subscribers.
The market rate is the rate at which supply and demand are in equilibrium, not the rate demanded by "the best". If someone else will do it cheaper, and they have the requisite skills (or can be trained to get them), that's the market rate.
The BBC will be looking at their programming in the round where football is seen as an important piece. They can't afford to show full games because they are always outbid so Match of the Day is all they have got. People switch into that programme because of Lineker. Dedicating 0.02% of their budget to Lineker so they can stay in the football broadcasting space is money well spent for the BBC.
LOL, they have no way of actually getting their money back, and the ridiculous six-figure pension for life isn’t going anywhere either.
There do seem to be conflicting accounts from the top of the BBC about whether Huw Edwards had kept them in the picture. £200,000 is not even a rounding error in the BBC's accounts so this looks like cheap theatre to keep Lisa Nandy and the tabloids at bay.
I'm not sure I approve of the Stalinist removal of Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Huw Edwards etc. from historical content, but the BBC not only paying Edwards after he had been charged and giving him a 40 grand annual pay rise too is an absurdity. If I was Edwards I'd tell the BBC to do one.
What the Huw Edwards salary debacle has demonstrated is the BBC are paying, through the ranks talent, far too much. There are some real no marks on £200,000, £300,000, £500,000 salaries simply for reading the news. Another problem is a £450,000 salary wasn't unique to a former National Treasures like Edwards. Utter w**k like Kuenssberg and Fiona Bruce are also earning those figures. In Kuenssberg's case for an hour of airtime a week. Cut them all back to no more than the salary of the PM. If they don't like it they can f*** off to GMB!
The BBC salaries in news and radio always made no sense at all. They should be bringing up young ‘talent’, not keeping the same people for decades and paying them massive salaries. If they want the kudos they can work for the BBC, if they want the money they can work for ITV, C4, or Sky.
BBC salaries make sense because they are in a market for talent. It is funny watching some who claim to be Conservatives, and to be supporters of free markets, jump through hoops to deny this. Worse, I'm not even sure they understand it. If the BBC wants the best, there's a price.
Now, I might think Man City overpay Haaland and that Anthony could score as many goals, but that is a different argument. As it happens, I do not rate Huw Edwards but cannot understand the scorn poured over Fiona Bruce each week. Gary Lineker is head and shoulders above Alan Shearer as a pundit.
ETA In radio it is even easier. Chris Evans was worth more than Terry Wogan because he got more listeners.
If they were in a market for talent then salaries would be 90% lower.
The market rate is that such that supply and demand are in equilibrium. It is not writing a blank cheque to the highest bidder, backed by imprisoning people if they won't make payments even if they don't consume your services.
A free market means that if there are 3 vacancies for say Match of the Day and the most expensive person for the job will only take the job for £500k and the third-cheapest person (with the requisite skills) will only take the job for £30k, then the free market rate is £30k.
You're only looking at half the equation. There is also a market for viewers, so the BBC finds itself in a weird semi-competitive position of trying to get people to turn the telly on while being a public broadcaster.
Simply put, I would be more than happy to be CEO of Shell for £100,000, but I'd immediately and catastrophically destroy the business.
Are you saying that you could destroy a great brand more comprehensively than a succession of CEOs did with the Post Office?
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Christ you’re thick, see you believe any old shit from Twitter as the original story doesn’t contain a link.
When you look at the story the chap has 13 convictions in the past.
But district judge John Temperley said he did not accept the comments and emojis were directed at the police.
"This offence, I’m afraid, has to be viewed in the context of the current civil unrest up and down this country. And I’ve no doubt at all that your post is connected to that wider picture," Mr Temperley said.
"I’ve read in the case summary of the comments you made on arrest which clearly demonstrate to me that there was a racial element to the messaging and the posting of these emojis."
You are a man of great personal faith and integrity, yet you are shilling for an immoral, godless (except for grifting bibles) sex predator and rapist (as confirmed by a New York civil court) and a convicted felon and scoundrel (as confirmed in a criminal court).
How can you sleep at night?
I posted a poll, it is what this site does, no comment about Trump at all (it even had Harris 1% ahead)
Posting polls on a political betting site is appropriate. However you tend to post polls in which Trump is leading or are trending towards Trump. You are not alone on PB in such a venture. Your posting does indicate your preference for Tango Man. Have you heard from Robert Cahally yet this election?
At this point, who hasn’t actively considered emigration?
You're the first one to bang on about how everything is going to change because of AI and tech. Do you think that nothing invented after 1997 should be regulated? If someone was handing out photocopied flyers on the high street inciting violence against mosques then they'd be hauled before a judge in 10 minutes. Why should it be any different online where thousands more are going to see it?
Enjoy your new Labour police state, your ugly cities and your terrible weather, your degraded culture and your helpless decline. I shall be elsewhere
For the moment, that is: having a shower and a coffee
So you are going to be fleeing a police state taking up hotel rooms badly needed by the locals?
What are you talking about?
Tommy Robinson.
Katie Price ?
I can't believe they arrested her. I thought she was untouchable. I had this image of her doing worse and worse plastic surgery until something exploded.
what, expecting he to go full Lolo Ferrari?
No, but I think there are limits on - say - how many facelifts you can have before something goes wrong. You end up trying to close wounds where one side is just scar tissue from the previous ops, and healing takes longer. She's already had complaints from fellow tourists about partially unclosed wounds and pus. She's doing too much too fast.
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Christ you’re thick, see you believe any old shit from Twitter as the original story doesn’t contain a link.
When you look at the story the chap has 13 convictions in the past.
But district judge John Temperley said he did not accept the comments and emojis were directed at the police.
"This offence, I’m afraid, has to be viewed in the context of the current civil unrest up and down this country. And I’ve no doubt at all that your post is connected to that wider picture," Mr Temperley said.
"I’ve read in the case summary of the comments you made on arrest which clearly demonstrate to me that there was a racial element to the messaging and the posting of these emojis."
LOL, they have no way of actually getting their money back, and the ridiculous six-figure pension for life isn’t going anywhere either.
There do seem to be conflicting accounts from the top of the BBC about whether Huw Edwards had kept them in the picture. £200,000 is not even a rounding error in the BBC's accounts so this looks like cheap theatre to keep Lisa Nandy and the tabloids at bay.
I'm not sure I approve of the Stalinist removal of Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Huw Edwards etc. from historical content, but the BBC not only paying Edwards after he had been charged and giving him a 40 grand annual pay rise too is an absurdity. If I was Edwards I'd tell the BBC to do one.
What the Huw Edwards salary debacle has demonstrated is the BBC are paying, through the ranks talent, far too much. There are some real no marks on £200,000, £300,000, £500,000 salaries simply for reading the news. Another problem is a £450,000 salary wasn't unique to a former National Treasures like Edwards. Utter w**k like Kuenssberg and Fiona Bruce are also earning those figures. In Kuenssberg's case for an hour of airtime a week. Cut them all back to no more than the salary of the PM. If they don't like it they can f*** off to GMB!
The BBC salaries in news and radio always made no sense at all. They should be bringing up young ‘talent’, not keeping the same people for decades and paying them massive salaries. If they want the kudos they can work for the BBC, if they want the money they can work for ITV, C4, or Sky.
BBC salaries make sense because they are in a market for talent. It is funny watching some who claim to be Conservatives, and to be supporters of free markets, jump through hoops to deny this. Worse, I'm not even sure they understand it. If the BBC wants the best, there's a price.
Now, I might think Man City overpay Haaland and that Anthony could score as many goals, but that is a different argument. As it happens, I do not rate Huw Edwards but cannot understand the scorn poured over Fiona Bruce each week. Gary Lineker is head and shoulders above Alan Shearer as a pundit.
ETA In radio it is even easier. Chris Evans was worth more than Terry Wogan because he got more listeners.
If they were in a market for talent then salaries would be 90% lower.
The market rate is that such that supply and demand are in equilibrium. It is not writing a blank cheque to the highest bidder, backed by imprisoning people if they won't make payments even if they don't consume your services.
A free market means that if there are 3 vacancies for say Match of the Day and the most expensive person for the job will only take the job for £500k and the third-cheapest person (with the requisite skills) will only take the job for £30k, then the free market rate is £30k.
I think the BBC is trying, not always successfully, to produce the best programming across the board given the budget it has available. It will always be outbid for showing the most popular football games, so it can try to compensate by having the best commentary. I think Lineker's salary can easily be justified on that basis.
Huw Edwards, even disregarding his recently discovered criminality, not so much.
I sort of agree, however take MOTD, Lineker may bring something extra to the table, but does that extra magic amount to what Jermaine Jenas or Mark Chapman (who are also very good) would expect to be paid. I doubt it. Someone compared Lineker to Shearer earlier. I was stunned to see Shearer gets £200,000 to play third fiddle.
Listener favourite Ken Bruce left the BBC, not least because he went unappreciated by management, but also because he was offered better terms. The listener figures went through the floor but does it matter? The BBC are not reliant on Ken Bruce bringing in advertising revenue.
The BBC assess Lineker to be worth it and I think we agree they are correct to assess on this basis. The question is whether they assess correctly. I suspect they do for Lineker, but not others. But what would I know about this?
Perhaps as much as Helen Thomas who oversaw the sacking of Steve Wright and essentially the constructive dismissal of Ken Bruce, replacing one with Scott Mills and the other with Vernon Kaye, shedding millions of listeners
How much did that cost them in subscriptions, advertising or licence fee revenue?
In advertising revenue, not a bean, I wouldn't have thought.
LOL, they have no way of actually getting their money back, and the ridiculous six-figure pension for life isn’t going anywhere either.
There do seem to be conflicting accounts from the top of the BBC about whether Huw Edwards had kept them in the picture. £200,000 is not even a rounding error in the BBC's accounts so this looks like cheap theatre to keep Lisa Nandy and the tabloids at bay.
I'm not sure I approve of the Stalinist removal of Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Huw Edwards etc. from historical content, but the BBC not only paying Edwards after he had been charged and giving him a 40 grand annual pay rise too is an absurdity. If I was Edwards I'd tell the BBC to do one.
What the Huw Edwards salary debacle has demonstrated is the BBC are paying, through the ranks talent, far too much. There are some real no marks on £200,000, £300,000, £500,000 salaries simply for reading the news. Another problem is a £450,000 salary wasn't unique to a former National Treasures like Edwards. Utter w**k like Kuenssberg and Fiona Bruce are also earning those figures. In Kuenssberg's case for an hour of airtime a week. Cut them all back to no more than the salary of the PM. If they don't like it they can f*** off to GMB!
The BBC salaries in news and radio always made no sense at all. They should be bringing up young ‘talent’, not keeping the same people for decades and paying them massive salaries. If they want the kudos they can work for the BBC, if they want the money they can work for ITV, C4, or Sky.
BBC salaries make sense because they are in a market for talent. It is funny watching some who claim to be Conservatives, and to be supporters of free markets, jump through hoops to deny this. Worse, I'm not even sure they understand it. If the BBC wants the best, there's a price.
Now, I might think Man City overpay Haaland and that Anthony could score as many goals, but that is a different argument. As it happens, I do not rate Huw Edwards but cannot understand the scorn poured over Fiona Bruce each week. Gary Lineker is head and shoulders above Alan Shearer as a pundit.
ETA In radio it is even easier. Chris Evans was worth more than Terry Wogan because he got more listeners.
If they were in a market for talent then salaries would be 90% lower.
The market rate is that such that supply and demand are in equilibrium. It is not writing a blank cheque to the highest bidder, backed by imprisoning people if they won't make payments even if they don't consume your services.
A free market means that if there are 3 vacancies for say Match of the Day and the most expensive person for the job will only take the job for £500k and the third-cheapest person (with the requisite skills) will only take the job for £30k, then the free market rate is £30k.
You're only looking at half the equation. There is also a market for viewers, so the BBC finds itself in a weird semi-competitive position of trying to get people to turn the telly on while being a public broadcaster.
Simply put, I would be more than happy to be CEO of Shell for £100,000, but I'd immediately and catastrophically destroy the business.
Are you saying that you could destroy a great brand more comprehensively than a succession of CEOs did with the Post Office?
That's pretty impressive.
I worked for Shell, back in the day.
There was a report written, after 9/11, that if the Shell HQ buildings were destroyed, along with everyone in them, the global business would be unaffected.
Another flabbergasting clip. How he can keep rolling out these ludicrous falsehoods and remain a viable contender for US president is a mystery.
But can he?
I'm hoping that the dam breaks, emperor's new clothes like, and it all comes tumbling down by Nov 5th. An implosion, I mean, a collapse in popularity and the polls. Support falling right down to the cult faithful and GOP partisans. Low forties.
I'm not predicting this but I do think it's possible. Hence why I have big Harris win in my Overton window.
No chance. Leon follows a fairly simple algorithm. It's similar to the one Twitter uses - if it gets more attention he'll post it, so long as it supports his prejudices. Like Trump, he's utterly shameless about spouting bullshit, lies and bigotry.
Another flabbergasting clip. How he can keep rolling out these ludicrous falsehoods and remain a viable contender for US president is a mystery.
But can he?
I'm hoping that the dam breaks, emperor's new clothes like, and it all comes tumbling down by Nov 5th. An implosion, I mean, a collapse in popularity and the polls. Support falling right down to the cult faithful and GOP partisans. Low forties.
I'm not predicting this but I do think it's possible. Hence why I have big Harris win in my Overton window.
People have been waiting for the absurd Trump bubble to break for a long, long time.
The line about going broke waiting for market rationality comes to mind.
LOL, they have no way of actually getting their money back, and the ridiculous six-figure pension for life isn’t going anywhere either.
There do seem to be conflicting accounts from the top of the BBC about whether Huw Edwards had kept them in the picture. £200,000 is not even a rounding error in the BBC's accounts so this looks like cheap theatre to keep Lisa Nandy and the tabloids at bay.
I'm not sure I approve of the Stalinist removal of Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Huw Edwards etc. from historical content, but the BBC not only paying Edwards after he had been charged and giving him a 40 grand annual pay rise too is an absurdity. If I was Edwards I'd tell the BBC to do one.
What the Huw Edwards salary debacle has demonstrated is the BBC are paying, through the ranks talent, far too much. There are some real no marks on £200,000, £300,000, £500,000 salaries simply for reading the news. Another problem is a £450,000 salary wasn't unique to a former National Treasures like Edwards. Utter w**k like Kuenssberg and Fiona Bruce are also earning those figures. In Kuenssberg's case for an hour of airtime a week. Cut them all back to no more than the salary of the PM. If they don't like it they can f*** off to GMB!
The BBC salaries in news and radio always made no sense at all. They should be bringing up young ‘talent’, not keeping the same people for decades and paying them massive salaries. If they want the kudos they can work for the BBC, if they want the money they can work for ITV, C4, or Sky.
BBC salaries make sense because they are in a market for talent. It is funny watching some who claim to be Conservatives, and to be supporters of free markets, jump through hoops to deny this. Worse, I'm not even sure they understand it. If the BBC wants the best, there's a price.
Now, I might think Man City overpay Haaland and that Anthony could score as many goals, but that is a different argument. As it happens, I do not rate Huw Edwards but cannot understand the scorn poured over Fiona Bruce each week. Gary Lineker is head and shoulders above Alan Shearer as a pundit.
ETA In radio it is even easier. Chris Evans was worth more than Terry Wogan because he got more listeners.
If they were in a market for talent then salaries would be 90% lower.
The market rate is that such that supply and demand are in equilibrium. It is not writing a blank cheque to the highest bidder, backed by imprisoning people if they won't make payments even if they don't consume your services.
A free market means that if there are 3 vacancies for say Match of the Day and the most expensive person for the job will only take the job for £500k and the third-cheapest person (with the requisite skills) will only take the job for £30k, then the free market rate is £30k.
You're only looking at half the equation. There is also a market for viewers, so the BBC finds itself in a weird semi-competitive position of trying to get people to turn the telly on while being a public broadcaster.
Simply put, I would be more than happy to be CEO of Shell for £100,000, but I'd immediately and catastrophically destroy the business.
Are you saying that you could destroy a great brand more comprehensively than a succession of CEOs did with the Post Office?
That's pretty impressive.
I worked for Shell, back in the day.
There was a report written, after 9/11, that if the Shell HQ buildings were destroyed, along with everyone in them, the global business would be unaffected.
Because there's not enough Tory constituencies left? Penrith and Solway would be Tory in any normal year and in 2019 nine out of the top ten were Tory.
LOL, they have no way of actually getting their money back, and the ridiculous six-figure pension for life isn’t going anywhere either.
There do seem to be conflicting accounts from the top of the BBC about whether Huw Edwards had kept them in the picture. £200,000 is not even a rounding error in the BBC's accounts so this looks like cheap theatre to keep Lisa Nandy and the tabloids at bay.
I'm not sure I approve of the Stalinist removal of Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Huw Edwards etc. from historical content, but the BBC not only paying Edwards after he had been charged and giving him a 40 grand annual pay rise too is an absurdity. If I was Edwards I'd tell the BBC to do one.
What the Huw Edwards salary debacle has demonstrated is the BBC are paying, through the ranks talent, far too much. There are some real no marks on £200,000, £300,000, £500,000 salaries simply for reading the news. Another problem is a £450,000 salary wasn't unique to a former National Treasures like Edwards. Utter w**k like Kuenssberg and Fiona Bruce are also earning those figures. In Kuenssberg's case for an hour of airtime a week. Cut them all back to no more than the salary of the PM. If they don't like it they can f*** off to GMB!
The BBC salaries in news and radio always made no sense at all. They should be bringing up young ‘talent’, not keeping the same people for decades and paying them massive salaries. If they want the kudos they can work for the BBC, if they want the money they can work for ITV, C4, or Sky.
BBC salaries make sense because they are in a market for talent. It is funny watching some who claim to be Conservatives, and to be supporters of free markets, jump through hoops to deny this. Worse, I'm not even sure they understand it. If the BBC wants the best, there's a price.
Now, I might think Man City overpay Haaland and that Anthony could score as many goals, but that is a different argument. As it happens, I do not rate Huw Edwards but cannot understand the scorn poured over Fiona Bruce each week. Gary Lineker is head and shoulders above Alan Shearer as a pundit.
ETA In radio it is even easier. Chris Evans was worth more than Terry Wogan because he got more listeners.
If they were in a market for talent then salaries would be 90% lower.
The market rate is that such that supply and demand are in equilibrium. It is not writing a blank cheque to the highest bidder, backed by imprisoning people if they won't make payments even if they don't consume your services.
A free market means that if there are 3 vacancies for say Match of the Day and the most expensive person for the job will only take the job for £500k and the third-cheapest person (with the requisite skills) will only take the job for £30k, then the free market rate is £30k.
You're only looking at half the equation. There is also a market for viewers, so the BBC finds itself in a weird semi-competitive position of trying to get people to turn the telly on while being a public broadcaster.
Simply put, I would be more than happy to be CEO of Shell for £100,000, but I'd immediately and catastrophically destroy the business.
Are you saying that you could destroy a great brand more comprehensively than a succession of CEOs did with the Post Office?
That's pretty impressive.
I worked for Shell, back in the day.
There was a report written, after 9/11, that if the Shell HQ buildings were destroyed, along with everyone in them, the global business would be unaffected.
So take the money, have a very long lunch
That report was written by the Royal Dutch guys.
No - it said that if all the HQ functions (both sides of the water) were wiped out, the 90 odd operating companies in the group would carry on trucking just fine.
The report was chucked in the trash and the external consultants who compiled it were put on the No Hire list. Stunning surprise, that last bit, eh?
EDIT: They were a strange mix of forward thinking and surprised by the results. So they got into Open Plan offices ahead of everyone else, smart card entry combined with computer security (Microsoft Europe wanted to analyse how they'd been the first people to integrate smart card login and Windows 2000. In the world.), and my favourite. 360 reviews.
After the first round of 360 reviews showed that a number of managers were less popular than concentration camp commanders among the inmates, they declared that the reviews were faulty and binned the reviewing system. First, they gave an automatic 95% to all the affected managers. Which was a higher score than some of the best liked managers....
Utterly absurd that some places are proposed to have lower targets than what they're currently delivering on old targets, when prices are still too high.
Here in the North West Salford has a price/earnings ratio of 6.3 and Preston has a price/earnings ratio of 5.3
Both were approximately 3 at the turn of the century before prices exploded and got out of control, which is a far healthier ratio.
Nowhere with a price/earnings ratio above 3, let alone over double that like Salford, should be building fewer homes than they are now, its ridiculous.
It was 1992 when the US Secret Service first arrested some for Internet threats against the President. Mouthing off against Clinton on USENET IIRC
The official and legal reaction to an action will always be in proportion to the *result* of an action.
Hence the “make a bomb joke in an airport, got to jail thing”. In the 90s, the PIRA started getting low level helpers to phone in phone bomb threats to airports. Which would shut them down, costing millions.
There was much wailing and appeals to European courts when the little helpers started getting vacations at Club HMG.
So if you stir up a riot via Twatter, they will drop the cost of the riot on you. Whining that “I only typed 20 words” isn’t the point. It’s the end result.
There’s a very, very long list of Americans who said something like “the President is coming to my town next week, I have my gun and my bullet ready”, who found out out that the US Secret Service take every one of these online threats seriously, turning up and imprisoning people during the visit of the VIP, only letting them go once their principal was wheels up out of the city.
People say this, but then we had the Trump shooting where they were told about a disaffected teenagers out with a rifle and their response was decidedly tepid.
Are you sure that story about the secret service is true, or is it a fable based on it happening somewhere, once?
Oh no, the USSS have always been watching social media very closely, almost every city one of their VIPs goes to, has an idiot who say something stupid on Facebook and is really surprised when the Secret Service actually turns up.
The failure at the Trump rally was a different failure, of basic physical security at a speech venue.
They certainly do. At least Starmer hasn't yet ordered the police to shoot dead in their homes those making offensive or threatening tweets yet!
'An armed Utah man accused of making violent threats against President Joe Biden was shot and killed by FBI agents hours before the president landed in the state Wednesday, authorities said. Special agents were trying to serve a warrant on the home of Craig Deleeuw Robertson in Provo, south of Salt Lake City, when the shooting happened at 6:15 a.m., the FBI said in a statement.
Another flabbergasting clip. How he can keep rolling out these ludicrous falsehoods and remain a viable contender for US president is a mystery.
But can he?
I'm hoping that the dam breaks, emperor's new clothes like, and it all comes tumbling down by Nov 5th. An implosion, I mean, a collapse in popularity and the polls. Support falling right down to the cult faithful and GOP partisans. Low forties.
I'm not predicting this but I do think it's possible. Hence why I have big Harris win in my Overton window.
People have been waiting for the absurd Trump bubble to break for a long, long time.
The line about going broke waiting for market rationality comes to mind.
Indeed. But you get tipping points sometimes. He's older, crasser, crazier now. Only takes a few pts of swing from here and he's buried.
As I say, not a prediction. Just an outcome I very much don't rule out.
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Inciting or threatening violence is a crime in every country. That's not ridiculous.
Free speech doesn't give you a right to threaten others with guns.
He typed an EMOJI on a family Facebook chat
Do you want the state to go through all of your messages, WhatsApps, emails, Youtube comments, letters and posts, and find a dubious emoji or two, which they interpret in the worst possible light, and then slam you in jail?
Was it actually on the family chat? The sentence is disgraceful either way, but did a family member dob him in or something?
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Inciting or threatening violence is a crime in every country. That's not ridiculous.
Free speech doesn't give you a right to threaten others with guns.
He typed an EMOJI on a family Facebook chat
Do you want the state to go through all of your messages, WhatsApps, emails, Youtube comments, letters and posts, and find a dubious emoji or two, which they interpret in the worst possible light, and then slam you in jail?
Was it actually on the family chat? The sentence is disgraceful either way, but did a family member dob him in or something?
According to the BBC report it wasn't on private chat.
Carlisle Magistrates’ Court heard that Billy Thompson, 31, posted online in response to Cumbria Police announcing a dispersal order over potential planned disorder on Wednesday.
It was 1992 when the US Secret Service first arrested some for Internet threats against the President. Mouthing off against Clinton on USENET IIRC
The official and legal reaction to an action will always be in proportion to the *result* of an action.
Hence the “make a bomb joke in an airport, got to jail thing”. In the 90s, the PIRA started getting low level helpers to phone in phone bomb threats to airports. Which would shut them down, costing millions.
There was much wailing and appeals to European courts when the little helpers started getting vacations at Club HMG.
So if you stir up a riot via Twatter, they will drop the cost of the riot on you. Whining that “I only typed 20 words” isn’t the point. It’s the end result.
There’s a very, very long list of Americans who said something like “the President is coming to my town next week, I have my gun and my bullet ready”, who found out out that the US Secret Service take every one of these online threats seriously, turning up and imprisoning people during the visit of the VIP, only letting them go once their principal was wheels up out of the city.
People say this, but then we had the Trump shooting where they were told about a disaffected teenagers out with a rifle and their response was decidedly tepid.
Are you sure that story about the secret service is true, or is it a fable based on it happening somewhere, once?
Oh no, the USSS have always been watching social media very closely, almost every city one of their VIPs goes to, has an idiot who say something stupid on Facebook and is really surprised when the Secret Service actually turns up.
The failure at the Trump rally was a different failure, of basic physical security at a speech venue.
They certainly do. At least Starmer hasn't yet ordered the police to shoot dead in their homes those making offensive or threatening tweets yet!
'An armed Utah man accused of making violent threats against President Joe Biden was shot and killed by FBI agents hours before the president landed in the state Wednesday, authorities said. Special agents were trying to serve a warrant on the home of Craig Deleeuw Robertson in Provo, south of Salt Lake City, when the shooting happened at 6:15 a.m., the FBI said in a statement.
Totally unfair, it's not like he was a black guy/ girl on a traffic stop with a bulb out.
To be fair, the US police farces have a long history of shooting lots of people of many races and creeds. As the ACLU used to point out ("it's your problem as well") most of the wrongful shootings were actually of white people, because of relative numbers.
The police shoot a higher proportion of ethnic minorities, wrongfully, relative to population, though.
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Inciting or threatening violence is a crime in every country. That's not ridiculous.
Free speech doesn't give you a right to threaten others with guns.
He typed an EMOJI on a family Facebook chat
Do you want the state to go through all of your messages, WhatsApps, emails, Youtube comments, letters and posts, and find a dubious emoji or two, which they interpret in the worst possible light, and then slam you in jail?
Was it actually on the family chat? The sentence is disgraceful either way, but did a family member dob him in or something?
According to the BBC report it wasn't on private chat.
Carlisle Magistrates’ Court heard that Billy Thompson, 31, posted online in response to Cumbria Police announcing a dispersal order over potential planned disorder on Wednesday.
No chance. Leon follows a fairly simple algorithm. It's similar to the one Twitter uses - if it gets more attention he'll post it, so long as it supports his prejudices. Like Trump, he's utterly shameless about spouting bullshit, lies and bigotry.
I think there's an "it's just Leon being Leon" sentiment that kind of cocoons him - a bit like we see with Donald Trump actually. It's a skill of sorts, I suppose.
I don't suppose that will affect anyone posting on here, oh wait...
It's a serious point. A pretty cheap drug which prevents dementia onset should be available. If it's not prescribed as a it's likely to cost the NHS, too.
Fair enough, I've seen early onset dementia at 35 after a lady we knew spent 20 years consuming six litres of White Lightening each day.
I couldn't resist a clumsy quip based on certain company.
...The FTSE 100 owner of the Drax power plant made profits of £500m over the first half of this year, helped by biomass subsidies of almost £400m over this period. It handed its shareholders a windfall of £300m for the first half of the year...
There's a potential spending cut, right there.
..The government is considering the company’s request for billpayers to foot the cost of supporting its power plant beyond the subsidy scheme’s deadline in 2027 so it can keep burning wood for power until the end of the decade...
Just no.
Drax's clever switch to American wood pellets (which I deplore in principle) is the only thing that has allowed it to stay open, and by extension keep the UK's lights on. Condemning it is remarkably stupid.
Biomass amount to about 6% of UK generation. It's eminently replaceable.
Subsidising dead end tech - and outsize profits to its owners - is remarkably stupid.
It is a subsidy that happens to support reliable power that isn't wind, season, sun, or time of day reliant - that's immensely valuable to the grid for anyone who isn't a crazed loon.
While that's true... the vast majority of the biomass that is burnt in the UK does not come from the UK. Most is wood pellets from the US, with a smaller share coming from Europe. There's also a small portion that is avocado pips (yes really) from a nearby cosmetics factory where they are waste product. (I forget which factory; but it uses avocado oil, and Drax takes away the pips for free.)
So we are subsidising the importation of wood to burn. If it was from local forests, and therefore added to energy security, it would be one thing. But paying subsidies to import wood from Georgia and Alabama on big bulk cargo ships seems wasteful to me, especially as the energy density of wood chips is pretty low: you might as well just burn the oil that powers the ship.
I couldn't agree with you more. If it were up to me, I'd still burn British coal in it - it is no more than Germany does, and I don’t see anyone here ripping into Germany every day for their crimes against the climate. However, given the legislative environment we face, I support Drax's move because their survival protects other areas of the economy from further damage.
I would also like there to be a many more incinerators - burning rubbish (safely) seems sensible to me. And again, our civilised continental neighbours do it a lot more than us.
Here's the thing: German brown coal (lignite) is really cheap. They literally strip the topsoil (overburden) up and dig it up with diggers. The marginal cost of production of a tonne of lignite is something like €12.
British coal, while more energy dense, involves digging holes in the ground and sending men down them to extract coal with equipment. Your marginal cost per tonne is going to be at least 10x that of lignite, and maybe a lot more. Not to mention the fact that you then need to get the coal to the power station.
German coal is competitive for electricity production. British coal is not.
Could it not be done co-operatively with that coking coal mine that was approved? If you're going to get coking standard coal out, won't there be some surrounding lower grade stuff coming out too that you can burn for power?
And @Carnyx I know we already have Energy from waste plants, but we burn a far lower percentage of our eligible waste than The Netherlands for example (they are on 120% - importing it from elsewhere), because there's no coordinated strategy, ecoloons are against it (what sensible thing aren't they against?), and nimbyism is a big issue because people think their babies will be born with two heads and constituency MPs tend to campaign big against them in their constituencies.
I hope the lads who blame all Gazans for Hamas because of a single election conducted in 2006 with lots of indimidation and violence are similarly exercised over Bibi and his supporters.
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Inciting or threatening violence is a crime in every country. That's not ridiculous.
Free speech doesn't give you a right to threaten others with guns.
He typed an EMOJI on a family Facebook chat
Do you want the state to go through all of your messages, WhatsApps, emails, Youtube comments, letters and posts, and find a dubious emoji or two, which they interpret in the worst possible light, and then slam you in jail?
Was it actually on the family chat? The sentence is disgraceful either way, but did a family member dob him in or something?
According to the BBC report it wasn't on private chat.
Carlisle Magistrates’ Court heard that Billy Thompson, 31, posted online in response to Cumbria Police announcing a dispersal order over potential planned disorder on Wednesday.
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Inciting or threatening violence is a crime in every country. That's not ridiculous.
Free speech doesn't give you a right to threaten others with guns.
He typed an EMOJI on a family Facebook chat
Do you want the state to go through all of your messages, WhatsApps, emails, Youtube comments, letters and posts, and find a dubious emoji or two, which they interpret in the worst possible light, and then slam you in jail?
Was it actually on the family chat? The sentence is disgraceful either way, but did a family member dob him in or something?
According to the BBC report it wasn't on private chat.
Carlisle Magistrates’ Court heard that Billy Thompson, 31, posted online in response to Cumbria Police announcing a dispersal order over potential planned disorder on Wednesday.
🇬🇧MAN JAILED IN UK FOR COMMENTING ON FACEBOOK POST ABOUT RIOTS
31-year-old Billy Thompson was sent to prison for 12 weeks after he replied "Filthy ba**ards" on a post about the Police issuing a dispersal order to try and prevent protests from becoming violent.
It also included emojis of an ethnic minority person and a gun.
His lawyer said Billy had made the comment as part of an online Facebook conversation with a family member.
The judge found him guilty of encouraging violence and imposed the sentence to "discourage the kind of violent behavior that such messages encouraged."
Judge Temperley:
"It may be right that the starting point [sentence] is a community order for this offense, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country."
Inciting or threatening violence is a crime in every country. That's not ridiculous.
Free speech doesn't give you a right to threaten others with guns.
He typed an EMOJI on a family Facebook chat
Do you want the state to go through all of your messages, WhatsApps, emails, Youtube comments, letters and posts, and find a dubious emoji or two, which they interpret in the worst possible light, and then slam you in jail?
Was it actually on the family chat? The sentence is disgraceful either way, but did a family member dob him in or something?
According to the BBC report it wasn't on private chat.
Carlisle Magistrates’ Court heard that Billy Thompson, 31, posted online in response to Cumbria Police announcing a dispersal order over potential planned disorder on Wednesday.
It was 1992 when the US Secret Service first arrested some for Internet threats against the President. Mouthing off against Clinton on USENET IIRC
The official and legal reaction to an action will always be in proportion to the *result* of an action.
Hence the “make a bomb joke in an airport, got to jail thing”. In the 90s, the PIRA started getting low level helpers to phone in phone bomb threats to airports. Which would shut them down, costing millions.
There was much wailing and appeals to European courts when the little helpers started getting vacations at Club HMG.
So if you stir up a riot via Twatter, they will drop the cost of the riot on you. Whining that “I only typed 20 words” isn’t the point. It’s the end result.
There’s a very, very long list of Americans who said something like “the President is coming to my town next week, I have my gun and my bullet ready”, who found out out that the US Secret Service take every one of these online threats seriously, turning up and imprisoning people during the visit of the VIP, only letting them go once their principal was wheels up out of the city.
People say this, but then we had the Trump shooting where they were told about a disaffected teenagers out with a rifle and their response was decidedly tepid.
Are you sure that story about the secret service is true, or is it a fable based on it happening somewhere, once?
Oh no, the USSS have always been watching social media very closely, almost every city one of their VIPs goes to, has an idiot who say something stupid on Facebook and is really surprised when the Secret Service actually turns up.
The failure at the Trump rally was a different failure, of basic physical security at a speech venue.
They certainly do. At least Starmer hasn't yet ordered the police to shoot dead in their homes those making offensive or threatening tweets yet!
'An armed Utah man accused of making violent threats against President Joe Biden was shot and killed by FBI agents hours before the president landed in the state Wednesday, authorities said. Special agents were trying to serve a warrant on the home of Craig Deleeuw Robertson in Provo, south of Salt Lake City, when the shooting happened at 6:15 a.m., the FBI said in a statement.
Totally unfair, it's not like he was a black guy/ girl on a traffic stop with a bulb out.
To be fair, the US police farces have a long history of shooting lots of people of many races and creeds. As the ACLU used to point out ("it's your problem as well") most of the wrongful shootings were actually of white people, because of relative numbers.
The police shoot a higher proportion of ethnic minorities, wrongfully, relative to population, though.
Your second paragraph is apposite. I found the "suicide" of Sandra Bland particularly worrying. In the Heat of the Night sprang to mind.
The League of United Latin American Citizens just announced they will endorse Kamala Harris. This is the first time the league has endorsed a candidate since 1929. Let’s go. https://x.com/harris_wins/status/1821884466643808336
Comments
Do you want the state to go through all of your messages, WhatsApps, emails, Youtube comments, letters and posts, and find a dubious emoji or two, which they interpret in the worst possible light, and then slam you in jail?
The failure at the Trump rally was a different failure, of basic physical security at a speech venue.
The developers are cossetted by our planning permission system which means that Barratt Homes can know they have permission to build but competitors do not, so they can dribble out homes at a rate that suits their bottom line.
I want to smash the oligopoly of developers by liberalising in a right wing free market way our housing so that anyone who wants to build a home can do so without asking for permission from the state first.
The subsidy (quite a bit of which ends up in overseas investors pockets) could be far better deployed.
And we're planning to turbocharge it, with the addition of CCS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerhill_Recycling_and_Energy_Recovery_Centre
For many, many years Edinburgh rubbish was used for fuel in the cement works at Dunbar, though I'm not sure it still goes there.
'An armed Utah man accused of making violent threats against President Joe Biden was shot and killed by FBI agents hours before the president landed in the state Wednesday, authorities said. Special agents were trying to serve a warrant on the home of Craig Deleeuw Robertson in Provo, south of Salt Lake City, when the shooting happened at 6:15 a.m., the FBI said in a statement.
Robertson posted online Monday that he had heard Biden was coming to Utah and he was planning to dig out a camouflage suit and begin “cleaning the dust off the M24 sniper rifle'
https://apnews.com/article/utah-biden-fbi-assassination-threat-ba3cc1d3b2f6cca8bd429febdcf04219
THINK BEFORE YOU THINK
We are turning into a shit version of North Korea, right now, right here, and people are cheering it on, not imagining how one day it might come back to bite THEM
British coal, while more energy dense, involves digging holes in the ground and sending men down them to extract coal with equipment. Your marginal cost per tonne is going to be at least 10x that of lignite, and maybe a lot more. Not to mention the fact that you then need to get the coal to the power station.
German coal is competitive for electricity production. British coal is not.
Listener favourite Ken Bruce left the BBC, not least because he went unappreciated by management, but also because he was offered better terms. The listener figures went through the floor but does it matter? The BBC are not reliant on Ken Bruce bringing in advertising revenue.
You want right wing illiberalism.
This isn't necessarily a judgment on them by the way. It is a statement of fact. But it might be worth understanding why people are OK with it.
In answer to questions:
No we don't have a farm shop locally, which is a shame. As my wife comments this part of Surrey is so posh they don't grow anything in the fields. They just have horses. Sadly that is accurate.
I have not tried red currants as they are so fiddly and stick to blackcurrants. Elderberries are worse but I freeze them in their bunches and then just brush off the frozen berries
Regarding other fruit, yes I have a lot more than I listed. I have strawberries and rhubarb plus a small orchard I guess of apple, pear and plum trees, but they are not as exotic. I do also pick greengages (or such like) in the wild and have one in the hedge of my garden. To be honest it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between some plants in the plum family. I am aware of 3 trees that I would call damsons but the fruit on each are all slightly different.
Re the point on peas and beans catching up with one another no matter when planted. Yep I found that. I planted in 2 - 3 week intervals and they all came at the same time.
Any advice on Raspberries: I am going to give up on Summer Raspberries because the canes always break, probably through fat wood pigeons. So much effort for so little return with all the wire and staking. I always have a very successful Autumn raspberry crop with no effort at all as they require no support.
I plan to dig up my summer raspberries OR if I cut them to the ground in the winter will they become Autumn raspberries. I assume not and I will simply get new growth but no fruit.
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9191724,8.7552354,3a,90y,221.79h,75.04t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNZSS2DFF-_jKyQZQXkhg3Jx0D_b_peRSaD1z5B!2e10!3e11!6s//lh5.ggpht.com/p/AF1QipNZSS2DFF-_jKyQZQXkhg3Jx0D_b_peRSaD1z5B=w900-h600-k-no-pi14.955180048100885-ya62.79435285961793-ro0-fo100!7i10240!8i5120?coh=205410&entry=ttu
https://x.com/ScotNational/status/1821865759309754655
The sun is shining. I shall have another coffee, and a nice walk in the park. Later
I believe Farage's (bullshit) intervention after those lovely and wholly innocent little girls were murdered, played a not insignificant part in what came next.
🔴 Trump 46%
RMG #C - 2000 RV - 8/7
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1821880665622643149
https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1821846972044550473
At the same time, they are openly broadcasting the deployment of their reinforcements on state TV, with easily identifiable locations...
When you look at the story the chap has 13 convictions in the past.
But district judge John Temperley said he did not accept the comments and emojis were directed at the police.
"This offence, I’m afraid, has to be viewed in the context of the current civil unrest up and down this country. And I’ve no doubt at all that your post is connected to that wider picture," Mr Temperley said.
"I’ve read in the case summary of the comments you made on arrest which clearly demonstrate to me that there was a racial element to the messaging and the posting of these emojis."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyn24p3e5ro#
On fruit, I've had two peaches so far this year (one in Bordeaux, one here in Dorset) that have been without doubt the tastiest fruit I have ever eaten in my life. The Dorset one was marginally better; as buttery and delicate as Bread and Butter Chardonnay in fruit form.
It's the same case as this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn022z0vgj4o but this report is pre-sentence.
You are a man of great personal faith and integrity, yet you are shilling for an immoral, godless (except for grifting bibles) sex predator and rapist (as confirmed by a New York civil court) and a convicted felon and scoundrel (as confirmed in a criminal court).
How can you sleep at night?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-13723189/RICHARD-EDEN-Palace-sources-say-desperate-Harry-Meghan-suddenly-keen-build-bridges-royals-REAL-reason.html
Message to people: when there's a riot shut up.
It also realeases a huge amount of NO2 and SO2, producing acid rain which has stripped that part of central Europe of most of its forest cover.
THINK BEFORE YOU POST
The CPS don't want to waste their time prosecuting people who post incitement to violence or racial hatred, hence their warning not to post it
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1821617092598047229?s=61
Not long since there were trains trundling along the NE Edinburgh waterfront to carry imported coal from Leith Docks to Cockenzie Power Station. which had been built to be served by merrygoround trains from deep pits in Lothian.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/08/ryanair-jet-collision-vehicle-stansted-report/
Nut I know what you mean - it must be a tough gig having to watch the full press conferences.
Yeah it’s fun to watch, but a sport, really…?
That's pretty impressive.
N Carolina; Florida; Texas; Ohio ... ?
(Everything else is too short odds to be interesting.)
Emojis have meanings, they're not meaningless, and if you write something you're responsible for what you write. And they're a form of writing.
If I pester a female colleague with 🍆 I'd expect to be 🔥 'd.
Threatening to shoot someone with a gun is no better doing so via emoji than via text.
There was a report written, after 9/11, that if the Shell HQ buildings were destroyed, along with everyone in them, the global business would be unaffected.
So take the money, have a very long lunch
https://x.com/f_giugliano/status/1821910827999355352?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
But can he?
I'm hoping that the dam breaks, emperor's new clothes like, and it all comes tumbling down by Nov 5th. An implosion, I mean, a collapse in popularity and the polls. Support falling right down to the cult faithful and GOP partisans. Low forties.
I'm not predicting this but I do think it's possible. Hence why I have big Harris win in my Overton window.
The line about going broke waiting for market rationality comes to mind.
TLDR, they haven't (so far) lumped the burden on opposition constituencies.
How politically divisive are Labour’s proposed housing targets? A thread..
https://x.com/MarleyGMiller/status/1821878992355336194
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/09/uk-shortage-of-drug-used-to-prevent-brain-damage-in-alcoholics
The report was chucked in the trash and the external consultants who compiled it were put on the No Hire list. Stunning surprise, that last bit, eh?
EDIT: They were a strange mix of forward thinking and surprised by the results. So they got into Open Plan offices ahead of everyone else, smart card entry combined with computer security (Microsoft Europe wanted to analyse how they'd been the first people to integrate smart card login and Windows 2000. In the world.), and my favourite. 360 reviews.
After the first round of 360 reviews showed that a number of managers were less popular than concentration camp commanders among the inmates, they declared that the reviews were faulty and binned the reviewing system. First, they gave an automatic 95% to all the affected managers. Which was a higher score than some of the best liked managers....
See Figure 4 here - price/earnings is far too high in the entire country: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/housingaffordabilityinenglandandwales/2023
Here in the North West Salford has a price/earnings ratio of 6.3 and Preston has a price/earnings ratio of 5.3
Both were approximately 3 at the turn of the century before prices exploded and got out of control, which is a far healthier ratio.
Nowhere with a price/earnings ratio above 3, let alone over double that like Salford, should be building fewer homes than they are now, its ridiculous.
As I say, not a prediction. Just an outcome I very much don't rule out.
A pretty cheap drug which prevents dementia onset should be available. If it's not prescribed it's likely to cost the NHS, too.
By the way, why is the sentence disgraceful?
The police shoot a higher proportion of ethnic minorities, wrongfully, relative to population, though.
Oh, you mean the prison sentence?
I couldn't resist a clumsy quip based on certain company.
And @Carnyx I know we already have Energy from waste plants, but we burn a far lower percentage of our eligible waste than The Netherlands for example (they are on 120% - importing it from elsewhere), because there's no coordinated strategy, ecoloons are against it (what sensible thing aren't they against?), and nimbyism is a big issue because people think their babies will be born with two heads and constituency MPs tend to campaign big against them in their constituencies.
https://x.com/HKesvani/status/1821923734334116312
I hope the lads who blame all Gazans for Hamas because of a single election conducted in 2006 with lots of indimidation and violence are similarly exercised over Bibi and his supporters.
NEW THREAD
The League of United Latin American Citizens just announced they will endorse Kamala Harris. This is the first time the league has endorsed a candidate since 1929. Let’s go.
https://x.com/harris_wins/status/1821884466643808336