Jared Kusher on the Twix overnight on Lebanon/Iran.
If I might paraphrase. Argues that an attack on Iranian nuclear sites was previously too risky due to the retaliation risk from Iran’s Ring of Fire proxies. Now that both Hamas and Hezzbolah are in disarray, the time has come to take out the Ayatollah’s bomb factories.
Put all that together with Trump’s public comments on Iran following the intelligence on their assassination attempts. And I think it’s a near cert that we see Top Gun 2 type stuff in early 2025 if he wins. Not impossible with a Harris victory either I guess.
If she had such massive issues with Starmer and his leadership, his stance on trans rights, why on Earth did she stand under the Labour banner months ago for re-election?
She should do the honourable thing and have a by-election immediately.
She probably should call a by-election if she wants to damage Starmer. She would probably win - she’s reasonably well known and popular notwithstanding her interesting views on trans.
She’s the local MP for my vineyard and a number of others so at a stroke Labour’s vineyard count goes down catastrophically. Most British viticulture is in the hands of Lib Dems. It’s the first vineyard gains for independent.
From a quick eyeball Labour is losing mine plus Simpsons, Heppington, Chartham, Barnsole, Gorsley, and Tadpole, and several hundred hectares of Nyetimber vineyards plus a vast new planting on the Chartham downs that’s as yet unmarked.
Good morning one and all.
On the subject of vineyards, yesterday I tried, at a local food fair, a Pinot Noir from a Suffolk firm, until then unknown to me. Sadly, I found it thin. I still haven't found more than one decent full-bodied British red wine.
That’s three of the four main forward ammo dumps hit in the last fortnight, will be months of ammunition in each of them, now all cooked off and usuless to the Russians.
Surely you are mistaken? US intelligence insists that long-range attacks in the Russian rear will have no impact on the war, and so giving Ukraine permission to use ATACMS or Storm Shadow on targets deep inside Russia would be pointless.
I'm so relieved that the Ukrainians have been able to develop an independent long-range strike capability, and I'd like to think Britain was supporting those efforts.
Boris has done a book in which he compares himself to King Canute, also spelt Cnut.
Lockdowns didn't beat covid.
What beat covid was herd immunity from everyone catching it, preferably after being vaccinated first.
Lockdowns were a way of buying time for vaccines to be developed and produced.
Lockdowns *helped* beat Covid, in the ways you say. They also spread out the peak, very much reducing the load on healthcare. I think this was one of their most vital roles.
(It also depends on how you define 'beat'. Mrs J had Covid for a second time last week, so it's not 'beaten' in that sense. But it is beaten in the sense that life can pretty much go on as normal with Covid about in its present form and severity.)
It would end like parking offences on non private land (local authority and other statutory bodies) civil enforcement. So FPN’s rather than magistrates court or SJP for offenders. A few would end up in the courts but far fewer.
There are many circumstances in which if I owe money that has not yet been paid all that is incurred is a civil debt, which can only be recovered by an action through the civil courts. No criminal or quasi criminal involvement at all. Ask any small business person. The BBC would be better placed - it has its own mighty legal department - than the local small business to use this system. The local small business has no choice. And he has to keep his customers happy.
Even when they do they don’t always get paid.
I follow a Facebook group for tradesmen about nightmare customers. The sort of person who wants someone to come and paint a three bed house for 500 quid.
A fascinating thread, illustrating your point, is for tradesmen working for letting agents, and many won’t again, and how they either never get their money or are made to wait. In one case 300 days. Often sole traders who need the money to live.
A construction contract (which a contract such as this with a letting agent as a contractor would likely be) has an implied statutory right to adjudicate with a decision in 28 days which the courts readily and quickly enforce.
Drop by the Facebook group and impart your wisdom there. Nightmare Customers and Non Payers. 👍
"It’s also notable how deep the negativity is. A majority of pretty much every key social and political group has a negative opinion of the Tories, including 55% of over 65s and 56% of Leave voters, who would have been viewed as dependable Conservative voters just a few years ago. The sole exception are Conservative voters themselves, but even then, one in six (17%) have an unfavourable view of a party they voted for just three months ago.
Returning to power will require changing the minds of some of those who voted for other parties, only a small minority of whom are amenable to the Conservatives at the moment. Only a quarter of Reform UK voters (26%), one in nine Lib Dems (11%) and just 4% of Labour voters currently say they see the Tories positively."
Is this not the story of the last couple of years - poisoning all 3 or 4 lobes of a varied electoral coalition?
I'd have liked to see the Yes-No for "Irrelevant".
It's interesting that in the long list of categories of "Who do the conservatives care about?", disabled people do not afaics even make Yougov's list of categories.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Because of prior Conservative reforms of the BBC, a lot of programmes we think of as by the BBC are by independent production companies and the BBC just has the UK broadcast rights for a certain period. What that means is that that content can’t be sold around the world by the BBC. A lot of archival material, the contracts written at the time never imagined the possibilities of worldwide streaming and so the contracts don’t straightforwardly allow for it.
Dr Who, notably, did a deal with Disney for worldwide streaming rights. The money that raised is enough to pay to make Dr Who. Where’s the extra money to pay for all the other, less profitable bits of the BBC?
Finally something positive from the new government.
Yes the prosecutions for licence fee evasion are disproportionally single mothers, who end up with a criminal record that has to be disclosed to potential employers.
However, let’s see what they replace it with, we don’t want the parking enforcement crowd to be set after people for TV licences either.
Once decriminalized, it will provoke a massive and immediate funding crisis at the BBC.
Journos better start asking Starmer what his position is on bailing out the BBC.
Will it though? Are you or I going to stop paying our licence fee because it’s now a civil offence, any more than we just park randomly on double yellow lines?
I assume non payment will rise a bit, but I’m not convinced there are hordes of budding licence fee refuseniks who were just waiting for this moment.
People are prosecuted for non-payment of the licence fee in Ireland, but that didn't stop a massive number from refusing to pay following RTÉ scandals last year.
It's possible that downgrading the consequences for non-payment will be the tipping point in Britain.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
This actually works extremely well here in Greece. The main state channel, ERT1, has news, advertisements and gameshows, and one of the other channels, I think either ERT2 or ERT3, has more upmarket content.I saw a beautifully made programme on it this morning, on the Ancient Greek philosophers, and with Greek, Italian, British and American contributors, that was of the calibre the BBC would have made in the '80s.
It would end like parking offences on non private land (local authority and other statutory bodies) civil enforcement. So FPN’s rather than magistrates court or SJP for offenders. A few would end up in the courts but far fewer.
There are many circumstances in which if I owe money that has not yet been paid all that is incurred is a civil debt, which can only be recovered by an action through the civil courts. No criminal or quasi criminal involvement at all. Ask any small business person. The BBC would be better placed - it has its own mighty legal department - than the local small business to use this system. The local small business has no choice. And he has to keep his customers happy.
Even when they do they don’t always get paid.
I follow a Facebook group for tradesmen about nightmare customers. The sort of person who wants someone to come and paint a three bed house for 500 quid.
A fascinating thread, illustrating your point, is for tradesmen working for letting agents, and many won’t again, and how they either never get their money or are made to wait. In one case 300 days. Often sole traders who need the money to live.
A construction contract (which a contract such as this with a letting agent as a contractor would likely be) has an implied statutory right to adjudicate with a decision in 28 days which the courts readily and quickly enforce.
Drop by the Facebook group and impart your wisdom there. Nightmare Customers and Non Payers. 👍
I suggest the problem is that many of the contractors are small organisations with no effective access to commercial legal advice. Perhaps there's an opening there for an enterprising lawyer.
That’s three of the four main forward ammo dumps hit in the last fortnight, will be months of ammunition in each of them, now all cooked off and usuless to the Russians.
Surely you are mistaken? US intelligence insists that long-range attacks in the Russian rear will have no impact on the war, and so giving Ukraine permission to use ATACMS or Storm Shadow on targets deep inside Russia would be pointless.
I'm so relieved that the Ukrainians have been able to develop an independent long-range strike capability, and I'd like to think Britain was supporting those efforts.
Apparently some Russian sources are complaining that one design of Ukrainian long-range weapon shares more than a passing similarity with one developed by pernicious Albion. One they claim we don't field ourselves.
The claim warms the cockles of my heart.
(It won't be, but I'd like to think something like this happened: "Oh dear, the schematics for this weapon have accidently been left on this USB stick in my desk. I hope no Ukrainian engineers come across it, or the machine tools that we've left in a lorry parked at Dover...")
Total pain, Rasmussen. You look at the WH24 polls and what you want to see is a solid block of blue, Harris +3, +4, +5, whatever, number doesn't matter, but just a nice row of unbroken blues, that's what you want, and you get it, except no you don't because there, right in the middle, sticking out like a sore thumb is a red showing Trump in the lead. Clearly bollox, your reason and intuition alike tell you that, so ok ignore, but the thing is you can't. It's there and it's spoiling things.
Finally something positive from the new government.
Yes the prosecutions for licence fee evasion are disproportionally single mothers, who end up with a criminal record that has to be disclosed to potential employers.
However, let’s see what they replace it with, we don’t want the parking enforcement crowd to be set after people for TV licences either.
Once decriminalized, it will provoke a massive and immediate funding crisis at the BBC.
Journos better start asking Starmer what his position is on bailing out the BBC.
Will it though? Are you or I going to stop paying our licence fee because it’s now a civil offence, any more than we just park randomly on double yellow lines?
I assume non payment will rise a bit, but I’m not convinced there are hordes of budding licence fee refuseniks who were just waiting for this moment.
I am delighted to let PB know that the dawn raid on my flat by TV Licensing SEAL team twat did not happen last week, despite six letters warning us about it.
We're moving again in January; Tora Bora (as we now call it) just doesn't feel safe anymore.
I've been under investigation for about 3 years, even though they don't know who they're investigating and refer to me as "The Legal Occupier". I get the factually incorrect, borderline harassment letters (letters that hold no legal requirement to even be read) every month. They just go straight into recycling, unopened. If they ever did turn up, I'd just say I'm not interested and they'd have to turn around and leave. They're not going to get a court order to force entry into my house, but if they did ,they'd find no TV reception equipment but they would find laptops, phones and tablets all capable of receiving TV licenable content on, if we chose to do so. It's not worth inviting them in for them to start arguing that me having a laptop means I need a TV Licence. Just say "No" is the only logical answer.
It would end like parking offences on non private land (local authority and other statutory bodies) civil enforcement. So FPN’s rather than magistrates court or SJP for offenders. A few would end up in the courts but far fewer.
And not having a TV license would harm your credit score?
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
It would end like parking offences on non private land (local authority and other statutory bodies) civil enforcement. So FPN’s rather than magistrates court or SJP for offenders. A few would end up in the courts but far fewer.
There are many circumstances in which if I owe money that has not yet been paid all that is incurred is a civil debt, which can only be recovered by an action through the civil courts. No criminal or quasi criminal involvement at all. Ask any small business person. The BBC would be better placed - it has its own mighty legal department - than the local small business to use this system. The local small business has no choice. And he has to keep his customers happy.
Even when they do they don’t always get paid.
I follow a Facebook group for tradesmen about nightmare customers. The sort of person who wants someone to come and paint a three bed house for 500 quid.
A fascinating thread, illustrating your point, is for tradesmen working for letting agents, and many won’t again, and how they either never get their money or are made to wait. In one case 300 days. Often sole traders who need the money to live.
A construction contract (which a contract such as this with a letting agent as a contractor would likely be) has an implied statutory right to adjudicate with a decision in 28 days which the courts readily and quickly enforce.
Drop by the Facebook group and impart your wisdom there. Nightmare Customers and Non Payers. 👍
I suggest the problem is that many of the contractors are small organisations with no effective access to commercial legal advice. Perhaps there's an opening there for an enterprising lawyer.
Mostly sole traders doing jobs for letting agents like plastering, decorating or minor repairs like repointing.
Badenoch is talking about how culture matters when it comes to immigration. What she means by that in practice appears to be don’t let Muslims in. Of course, the big shift in UK immigration patterns in recent years was Brexit, that saw immigration from a lot of Christian/atheist countries in the EU fall, while immigration from predominantly Muslim countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria) or countries with large Muslim minorities (India) increase.
Not that it is clear how Badenoch would operationalise her comments. Does she mean adjusting the rules for different countries? Does she mean assessing individual would-be migrants before they can enter the country?
Total pain, Rasmussen. You look at the WH24 polls and what you want to see is a solid block of blue, Harris +3, +4, +5, whatever, number doesn't matter, but just a nice row of unbroken blues, that's what you want, and you get it, except no you don't because there, right in the middle, sticking out like a sore thumb is a red showing Trump in the lead. Clearly bollox, your reason and intuition alike tell you that, so ok ignore, but the thing is you can't. It's there and it's spoiling things.
I hope that showing the contest to be closer than it is drives Democrat turn-out.
It would end like parking offences on non private land (local authority and other statutory bodies) civil enforcement. So FPN’s rather than magistrates court or SJP for offenders. A few would end up in the courts but far fewer.
There are many circumstances in which if I owe money that has not yet been paid all that is incurred is a civil debt, which can only be recovered by an action through the civil courts. No criminal or quasi criminal involvement at all. Ask any small business person. The BBC would be better placed - it has its own mighty legal department - than the local small business to use this system. The local small business has no choice. And he has to keep his customers happy.
Even when they do they don’t always get paid.
I follow a Facebook group for tradesmen about nightmare customers. The sort of person who wants someone to come and paint a three bed house for 500 quid.
A fascinating thread, illustrating your point, is for tradesmen working for letting agents, and many won’t again, and how they either never get their money or are made to wait. In one case 300 days. Often sole traders who need the money to live.
A construction contract (which a contract such as this with a letting agent as a contractor would likely be) has an implied statutory right to adjudicate with a decision in 28 days which the courts readily and quickly enforce.
Drop by the Facebook group and impart your wisdom there. Nightmare Customers and Non Payers. 👍
I suggest the problem is that many of the contractors are small organisations with no effective access to commercial legal advice. Perhaps there's an opening there for an enterprising lawyer.
Mostly sole traders doing jobs for letting agents like plastering, decorating or minor repairs like repointing.
As I suspected. In Britain, Justice is available to all, like the Ritz Hotel.
That’s three of the four main forward ammo dumps hit in the last fortnight, will be months of ammunition in each of them, now all cooked off and usuless to the Russians.
Surely you are mistaken? US intelligence insists that long-range attacks in the Russian rear will have no impact on the war, and so giving Ukraine permission to use ATACMS or Storm Shadow on targets deep inside Russia would be pointless.
I'm so relieved that the Ukrainians have been able to develop an independent long-range strike capability, and I'd like to think Britain was supporting those efforts.
Apparently some Russian sources are complaining that one design of Ukrainian long-range weapon shares more than a passing similarity with one developed by pernicious Albion. One they claim we don't field ourselves.
The claim warms the cockles of my heart.
(It won't be, but I'd like to think something like this happened: "Oh dear, the schematics for this weapon have accidently been left on this USB stick in my desk. I hope no Ukrainian engineers come across it, or the machine tools that we've left in a lorry parked at Dover...")
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The bbc should have been privatised and partially listed in around 2010 with the state keeping a 49% stake and a golden share over public interest elements. Ipo proceeds ploughed back into growing internationally attractive content.
iplayer was first out the streaming door, there was a decades long catalogue of content, and the UK is one of the finest places in the world for creative industries content creation. Netflix would have been dead on arrival and the beeb would now be worth a few hundred billion.
Badenoch is talking about how culture matters when it comes to immigration. What she means by that in practice appears to be don’t let Muslims in. Of course, the big shift in UK immigration patterns in recent years was Brexit, that saw immigration from a lot of Christian/atheist countries in the EU fall, while immigration from predominantly Muslim countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria) or countries with large Muslim minorities (India) increase.
Not that it is clear how Badenoch would operationalise her comments. Does she mean adjusting the rules for different countries? Does she mean assessing individual would-be migrants before they can enter the country?
Not that it is clear why she is wrong in suggesting that cultural values are important. e.g. values that at the extreme promote ideas such as homosexuality being worthy of capital punishment, women should be economically and sexually subservient to men etc…
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
Are you suggesting that the BBC has easy access to income streams, but they just haven’t bothered to spend the “time and effort” to realise them? Get real!
If she had such massive issues with Starmer and his leadership, his stance on trans rights, why on Earth did she stand under the Labour banner months ago for re-election?
She should do the honourable thing and have a by-election immediately.
The truth hurts and you miss the point - maybe read her 3 page letter
It was the freebies, cronyism, WFP and the two child cap that caused her to take her principled stance no matter how embarrassing for an ever detached leaderships
It would end like parking offences on non private land (local authority and other statutory bodies) civil enforcement. So FPN’s rather than magistrates court or SJP for offenders. A few would end up in the courts but far fewer.
There are many circumstances in which if I owe money that has not yet been paid all that is incurred is a civil debt, which can only be recovered by an action through the civil courts. No criminal or quasi criminal involvement at all. Ask any small business person. The BBC would be better placed - it has its own mighty legal department - than the local small business to use this system. The local small business has no choice. And he has to keep his customers happy.
Even when they do they don’t always get paid.
I follow a Facebook group for tradesmen about nightmare customers. The sort of person who wants someone to come and paint a three bed house for 500 quid.
A fascinating thread, illustrating your point, is for tradesmen working for letting agents, and many won’t again, and how they either never get their money or are made to wait. In one case 300 days. Often sole traders who need the money to live.
A construction contract (which a contract such as this with a letting agent as a contractor would likely be) has an implied statutory right to adjudicate with a decision in 28 days which the courts readily and quickly enforce.
Drop by the Facebook group and impart your wisdom there. Nightmare Customers and Non Payers. 👍
I suggest the problem is that many of the contractors are small organisations with no effective access to commercial legal advice. Perhaps there's an opening there for an enterprising lawyer.
Mostly sole traders doing jobs for letting agents like plastering, decorating or minor repairs like repointing.
As I suspected. In Britain, Justice is available to all, like the Ritz Hotel.
I wonder if pro bono training on this point may pay off in the long term in terms of marketing and/or when the odd contractor gets big
Badenoch is talking about how culture matters when it comes to immigration. What she means by that in practice appears to be don’t let Muslims in. Of course, the big shift in UK immigration patterns in recent years was Brexit, that saw immigration from a lot of Christian/atheist countries in the EU fall, while immigration from predominantly Muslim countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria) or countries with large Muslim minorities (India) increase.
Not that it is clear how Badenoch would operationalise her comments. Does she mean adjusting the rules for different countries? Does she mean assessing individual would-be migrants before they can enter the country?
Not that it is clear why she is wrong in suggesting that cultural values are important. e.g. values that at the extreme promote ideas such as homosexuality being worthy of capital punishment, women should be economically and sexually subservient to men etc…
OK, so how do you operationalise that? What does it mean in practice?
And, the difficult question for all the candidates, why did Tory policy in the many years Badenoch and the others were ministers not do these things?
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
Then maybe we should return the BBC to how it was between the 1960s and 1990s?
If she had such massive issues with Starmer and his leadership, his stance on trans rights, why on Earth did she stand under the Labour banner months ago for re-election?
She should do the honourable thing and have a by-election immediately.
The truth hurts and you miss the point - maybe read her 3 page letter
It was the freebies, cronyism, WFP and the two child cap that caused her to take her principled stance no matter how embarrassing for an ever detached leaderships
Starmers problems are sitting behind him
Didn’t Duffield vote for the WFP change and against removing the 2-child cap?
It would end like parking offences on non private land (local authority and other statutory bodies) civil enforcement. So FPN’s rather than magistrates court or SJP for offenders. A few would end up in the courts but far fewer.
There are many circumstances in which if I owe money that has not yet been paid all that is incurred is a civil debt, which can only be recovered by an action through the civil courts. No criminal or quasi criminal involvement at all. Ask any small business person. The BBC would be better placed - it has its own mighty legal department - than the local small business to use this system. The local small business has no choice. And he has to keep his customers happy.
Even when they do they don’t always get paid.
I follow a Facebook group for tradesmen about nightmare customers. The sort of person who wants someone to come and paint a three bed house for 500 quid.
A fascinating thread, illustrating your point, is for tradesmen working for letting agents, and many won’t again, and how they either never get their money or are made to wait. In one case 300 days. Often sole traders who need the money to live.
A construction contract (which a contract such as this with a letting agent as a contractor would likely be) has an implied statutory right to adjudicate with a decision in 28 days which the courts readily and quickly enforce.
Drop by the Facebook group and impart your wisdom there. Nightmare Customers and Non Payers. 👍
I suggest the problem is that many of the contractors are small organisations with no effective access to commercial legal advice. Perhaps there's an opening there for an enterprising lawyer.
Mostly sole traders doing jobs for letting agents like plastering, decorating or minor repairs like repointing.
Maybe twenty years ago friends who did this sort of work talked with each other. When making out quotes for jobs some customers got a "special customer premium" on the quote. Weirdly such customers often accepted the quote !
@implausibleblog Kemi Badenoch, "People didn't understand what we stood for"
Trevor Philips, "The public knew exactly what you stood for.. Parties under Boris Johnson.. Market chaos under Liz Truss.. Record immigration figures under Rishi Sunak.. The public knew what you were about and that's why they didn't vote for you"
If she had such massive issues with Starmer and his leadership, his stance on trans rights, why on Earth did she stand under the Labour banner months ago for re-election?
She should do the honourable thing and have a by-election immediately.
She probably should call a by-election if she wants to damage Starmer. She would probably win - she’s reasonably well known and popular notwithstanding her interesting views on trans.
She’s the local MP for my vineyard and a number of others so at a stroke Labour’s vineyard count goes down catastrophically. Most British viticulture is in the hands of Lib Dems. It’s the first vineyard gains for independent.
From a quick eyeball Labour is losing mine plus Simpsons, Heppington, Chartham, Barnsole, Gorsley, and Tadpole, and several hundred hectares of Nyetimber vineyards plus a vast new planting on the Chartham downs that’s as yet unmarked.
Good morning one and all.
On the subject of vineyards, yesterday I tried, at a local food fair, a Pinot Noir from a Suffolk firm, until then unknown to me. Sadly, I found it thin. I still haven't found more than one decent full-bodied British red wine.
Giffords Hall? Near bury st Edmond’s, I bumped into its owner on the train back from a viticulture event a couple oh years ago.
The best Pinots and the only that could be described as anything like “full bodied” (though that’s not really what pinots are supposed to be anyway) are from the Crouch valley in Essex. Try Danbury Ridge or Riverview Crouch Valley.
Otherwise you get fuller body in Pinot Precoce, which ripens earlier and tastes similar. Sixteen Ridges in Herefordshire makes a good one.
But we are still best at sparkling in this country. Still reds and whites remain a novelty, as they are in Champagne too, whereas sparkling is world class. This season’s challenging ripening conditions may be reminding winemakers of this fact. My Melon B is only at 14 brix now, my Pinot is 15-16, neither is enough to make decent still wine but is about a fortnight away from ideal for sparkling.
Badenoch is talking about how culture matters when it comes to immigration. What she means by that in practice appears to be don’t let Muslims in. Of course, the big shift in UK immigration patterns in recent years was Brexit, that saw immigration from a lot of Christian/atheist countries in the EU fall, while immigration from predominantly Muslim countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria) or countries with large Muslim minorities (India) increase.
Not that it is clear how Badenoch would operationalise her comments. Does she mean adjusting the rules for different countries? Does she mean assessing individual would-be migrants before they can enter the country?
Not that it is clear why she is wrong in suggesting that cultural values are important. e.g. values that at the extreme promote ideas such as homosexuality being worthy of capital punishment, women should be economically and sexually subservient to men etc…
Views that were considered mainstream parts of native British culture well within living memory.
I am very glad that such attitudes are now anathema but not convinced that a Tory party that opposed nearly every liberalisation is a viable champion. Gay marriage only passed with opposition votes to cite a fairly recent example.
On topic, the problem with polling in the US - on top of its other issues - is that it is increasingly seen as a tool of warfare in the wider political game rather than an honest attempt to truly evaluate the popular support for each side with the aim seemingly to demoralise the other side / boost your own side to discourage / encourage turnout.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
Are you suggesting that the BBC has easy access to income streams, but they just haven’t bothered to spend the “time and effort” to realise them? Get real!
A masssive f***ing YES is the answer to that question.
They are an organisation sitting on one of the most valuable media archives in the world, and have done little to nothing to monetise it, being instead focussed on what they are producing today and tomorrow.
A lot of this media was produced decades ago, when the contracts didn’t know what the internet was, so there’s a job of work to get the licenceing sorted. But that’s exactly what Disney did, and they’re now making billions from their streaming service. The BBC mindset is totally risk-averse to this sort of venture.
"It’s also notable how deep the negativity is. A majority of pretty much every key social and political group has a negative opinion of the Tories, including 55% of over 65s and 56% of Leave voters, who would have been viewed as dependable Conservative voters just a few years ago. The sole exception are Conservative voters themselves, but even then, one in six (17%) have an unfavourable view of a party they voted for just three months ago.
Returning to power will require changing the minds of some of those who voted for other parties, only a small minority of whom are amenable to the Conservatives at the moment. Only a quarter of Reform UK voters (26%), one in nine Lib Dems (11%) and just 4% of Labour voters currently say they see the Tories positively."
Boris has done a book in which he compares himself to King Canute, also spelt Cnut.
Boris Johnson is well known for his expertise in forensic viral genetics.
That and trying to upstage the Tory party Conference.
The funny thing is, re the Telegraph headline, that lockdowns were sold as protecting the NHS, not as eliminating Covid. I can only imagine it is a clever ploy to make us buy the book in order to see if Boris really has misunderstood his own policy.
Yep, if there's one way I would describe Johnson being dragged out of Downing Street yelling "You'll want me back! You've never had better! You total bastards!", it's "general lack of bitterness".
It would end like parking offences on non private land (local authority and other statutory bodies) civil enforcement. So FPN’s rather than magistrates court or SJP for offenders. A few would end up in the courts but far fewer.
There are many circumstances in which if I owe money that has not yet been paid all that is incurred is a civil debt, which can only be recovered by an action through the civil courts. No criminal or quasi criminal involvement at all. Ask any small business person. The BBC would be better placed - it has its own mighty legal department - than the local small business to use this system. The local small business has no choice. And he has to keep his customers happy.
Even when they do they don’t always get paid.
I follow a Facebook group for tradesmen about nightmare customers. The sort of person who wants someone to come and paint a three bed house for 500 quid.
A fascinating thread, illustrating your point, is for tradesmen working for letting agents, and many won’t again, and how they either never get their money or are made to wait. In one case 300 days. Often sole traders who need the money to live.
A construction contract (which a contract such as this with a letting agent as a contractor would likely be) has an implied statutory right to adjudicate with a decision in 28 days which the courts readily and quickly enforce.
Drop by the Facebook group and impart your wisdom there. Nightmare Customers and Non Payers. 👍
I suggest the problem is that many of the contractors are small organisations with no effective access to commercial legal advice. Perhaps there's an opening there for an enterprising lawyer.
Mostly sole traders doing jobs for letting agents like plastering, decorating or minor repairs like repointing.
Maybe twenty years ago friends who did this sort of work talked with each other. When making out quotes for jobs some customers got a "special customer premium" on the quote. Weirdly such customers often accepted the quote !
Anyone who has ever worked for themselves, has way overpriced a job because they didn’t really want to do it for whatever reason, be it scheduling, a small job, a known difficult customer, or someone known for taking ages to pay bills.
That’s three of the four main forward ammo dumps hit in the last fortnight, will be months of ammunition in each of them, now all cooked off and usuless to the Russians.
I initially misread that into stating that another massive Rasmussen ammunition dump was on fire which made me think that the biases were even worse than the article suggests.
Rasmussen have sought to distort the averages to Trump's advantage. They tend to herd at the election date which gives them some protection from accusations of bias but this has got rather old and people have noticed. These latest disclosures are simply the icing on the cake.
The thing that the Tories have going for them is that the Labour Party aren’t doing a great job in government right now and, therefore, whoever leads them might become the repository for some anti-government votes.
The bad news is that it’s pretty much the only thing they’ve got going for them right now. They are still deeply unpopular, and while I don’t quite share the same level of certainty as some on here re the direness of the leadership candidates, charitably I don’t think any of them are great.
The main job for the Tories in the next few years is to position themselves to as best build an electoral coalition to fight Labour. That’s easier said than done, but if they don’t manage that then you have the real potential for third party surges.
I am still expecting a poll in the next 12-24 months that has Ref, Lab and Con all hovering around 25%, for what it’s worth.
If she had such massive issues with Starmer and his leadership, his stance on trans rights, why on Earth did she stand under the Labour banner months ago for re-election?
She should do the honourable thing and have a by-election immediately.
She probably should call a by-election if she wants to damage Starmer. She would probably win - she’s reasonably well known and popular notwithstanding her interesting views on trans.
She’s the local MP for my vineyard and a number of others so at a stroke Labour’s vineyard count goes down catastrophically. Most British viticulture is in the hands of Lib Dems. It’s the first vineyard gains for independent.
From a quick eyeball Labour is losing mine plus Simpsons, Heppington, Chartham, Barnsole, Gorsley, and Tadpole, and several hundred hectares of Nyetimber vineyards plus a vast new planting on the Chartham downs that’s as yet unmarked.
Good morning one and all.
On the subject of vineyards, yesterday I tried, at a local food fair, a Pinot Noir from a Suffolk firm, until then unknown to me. Sadly, I found it thin. I still haven't found more than one decent full-bodied British red wine.
Giffords Hall? Near bury st Edmond’s, I bumped into its owner on the train back from a viticulture event a couple oh years ago.
The best Pinots and the only that could be described as anything like “full bodied” (though that’s not really what pinots are supposed to be anyway) are from the Crouch valley in Essex. Try Danbury Ridge or Riverview Crouch Valley.
Otherwise you get fuller body in Pinot Precoce, which ripens earlier and tastes similar. Sixteen Ridges in Herefordshire makes a good one.
But we are still best at sparkling in this country. Still reds and whites remain a novelty, as they are in Champagne too, whereas sparkling is world class. This season’s challenging ripening conditions may be reminding winemakers of this fact. My Melon B is only at 14 brix now, my Pinot is 15-16, neither is enough to make decent still wine but is about a fortnight away from ideal for sparkling.
Yes, I recall trying the Giffords Hall, although carelessly I'd forgotten the name. I suppose 'full-bodied' isn't a fair description of a Pinot Noir, but IMHO anyway, they should have more body than the one I tried yesterday did. I don't know the Riverview Crouch Valley wines, although I'm not far away; must make enquiries. That's another issue with English wines; small scale. Had an 'interesting" sparkling from the Isle of Wight a few weeks ago; tasted OK, but for some reason best known to the vineyard, they'd coloured it blue.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
Must talk to my grandchildren about this. For myself I can't abide watching sport when I know the result. Anything else I can happily watch whenever.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
Then they’ve missed the joyous family viewing that is race across the world!
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
Must talk to my grandchildren about this. For myself I can't abide watching sport when I know the result. Anything else I can happily watch whenever.
Last year less than a third of 16-24 year olds watch 15 consecutive minutes or more of BBC content (inc catchup) in an average week.
If she had such massive issues with Starmer and his leadership, his stance on trans rights, why on Earth did she stand under the Labour banner months ago for re-election?
She should do the honourable thing and have a by-election immediately.
The truth hurts and you miss the point - maybe read her 3 page letter
It was the freebies, cronyism, WFP and the two child cap that caused her to take her principled stance no matter how embarrassing for an ever detached leaderships
Starmers problems are sitting behind him
Didn’t Duffield vote for the WFP change and against removing the 2-child cap?
Under threat from the whips but then she decided enough was enough
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
Must talk to my grandchildren about this. For myself I can't abide watching sport when I know the result. Anything else I can happily watch whenever.
Last year less than a third of 16-24 year olds watch 15 consecutive minutes or more of BBC content (inc catchup) in an average week.
Two of my British grandchildren fall into that bracket. As I said, must ask them.
"It’s also notable how deep the negativity is. A majority of pretty much every key social and political group has a negative opinion of the Tories, including 55% of over 65s and 56% of Leave voters, who would have been viewed as dependable Conservative voters just a few years ago. The sole exception are Conservative voters themselves, but even then, one in six (17%) have an unfavourable view of a party they voted for just three months ago.
Returning to power will require changing the minds of some of those who voted for other parties, only a small minority of whom are amenable to the Conservatives at the moment. Only a quarter of Reform UK voters (26%), one in nine Lib Dems (11%) and just 4% of Labour voters currently say they see the Tories positively."
It's a salutatory lesson that even if SSW and Labour flush themselves down the toilet there's no guarantee, or even the semblance of one, that the Conservatives would stand to benefit.
They need to sort their out shit out and get there own house in order before they'll even get a hearing.
If she had such massive issues with Starmer and his leadership, his stance on trans rights, why on Earth did she stand under the Labour banner months ago for re-election?
She should do the honourable thing and have a by-election immediately.
She probably should call a by-election if she wants to damage Starmer. She would probably win - she’s reasonably well known and popular notwithstanding her interesting views on trans.
She’s the local MP for my vineyard and a number of others so at a stroke Labour’s vineyard count goes down catastrophically. Most British viticulture is in the hands of Lib Dems. It’s the first vineyard gains for independent.
From a quick eyeball Labour is losing mine plus Simpsons, Heppington, Chartham, Barnsole, Gorsley, and Tadpole, and several hundred hectares of Nyetimber vineyards plus a vast new planting on the Chartham downs that’s as yet unmarked.
Good morning one and all.
On the subject of vineyards, yesterday I tried, at a local food fair, a Pinot Noir from a Suffolk firm, until then unknown to me. Sadly, I found it thin. I still haven't found more than one decent full-bodied British red wine.
Giffords Hall? Near bury st Edmond’s, I bumped into its owner on the train back from a viticulture event a couple oh years ago.
The best Pinots and the only that could be described as anything like “full bodied” (though that’s not really what pinots are supposed to be anyway) are from the Crouch valley in Essex. Try Danbury Ridge or Riverview Crouch Valley.
Otherwise you get fuller body in Pinot Precoce, which ripens earlier and tastes similar. Sixteen Ridges in Herefordshire makes a good one.
But we are still best at sparkling in this country. Still reds and whites remain a novelty, as they are in Champagne too, whereas sparkling is world class. This season’s challenging ripening conditions may be reminding winemakers of this fact. My Melon B is only at 14 brix now, my Pinot is 15-16, neither is enough to make decent still wine but is about a fortnight away from ideal for sparkling.
Yes, I recall trying the Giffords Hall, although carelessly I'd forgotten the name. I suppose 'full-bodied' isn't a fair description of a Pinot Noir, but IMHO anyway, they should have more body than the one I tried yesterday did. I don't know the Riverview Crouch Valley wines, although I'm not far away; must make enquiries. That's another issue with English wines; small scale. Had an 'interesting" sparkling from the Isle of Wight a few weeks ago; tasted OK, but for some reason best known to the vineyard, they'd coloured it blue.
Many years ago I visited a vineyard on the Isle of Wight that claimed to have been going since the Romans. The experience was pretty horrid - parked in a shed to watch a grainy VHS, then given horrid little tastings in shot glasses - their sparkling wasn't racked so there must have been a soda stream out the back. They clearly couldn't wait to offload the whole place. I then visited another one nearby as a (literal) palate cleanser, which was lovely.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
The only thing anyone under about 50 watches live on TV is sport. Something that the BBC has very little to show these days.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
Then they’ve missed the joyous family viewing that is race across the world!
They just catch up with their interests on the Internet. Apparently, you can find anything you want on there!
I find many fingers angrily jabbing in the direction of Simon Case, the Boris Johnson-appointed cabinet secretary. If I were to sink a beer every time I hear a Labour person say he needs to be ushered out of the building as soon as possible, I would require hospital treatment for alcohol poisoning.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The bbc should have been privatised and partially listed in around 2010 with the state keeping a 49% stake and a golden share over public interest elements. Ipo proceeds ploughed back into growing internationally attractive content.
iplayer was first out the streaming door, there was a decades long catalogue of content, and the UK is one of the finest places in the world for creative industries content creation. Netflix would have been dead on arrival and the beeb would now be worth a few hundred billion.
I have a vague memory that the government (can't remember if it was late Brown/Blair or early Osborne/Cameron) stopped them offering the streaming they wanted to do. In part because it would 'distort the market' or some such (ie, not benefit Mr. Murdoch).
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
Must talk to my grandchildren about this. For myself I can't abide watching sport when I know the result. Anything else I can happily watch whenever.
Last year less than a third of 16-24 year olds watch 15 consecutive minutes or more of BBC content (inc catchup) in an average week.
Two of my British grandchildren fall into that bracket. As I said, must ask them.
Its a great pity she lost her seat. She would have been a more effective leader of the opposition than any of the current 4 candidates.
I really don't see how that's true. She fluffed two chances at the leadership, and several key opportunities along the way. She is a gifted lady, especially when it comes to delivering a well-prepared soundbite, but it takes a lot more than that. I am sure she will get selected again if she wants it - I don't see the Tories gaining less than 100 seats next time round, so there will be plenty to go round.
Badenoch says 'Israel showing moral clarity in dealing with its enemies'
Well, yes. Wars tend to add moral clarity. That's kind of the point.
Somebody once said that wars can be seen as a way of changing the legislative frame: the laws you abide by prior are different to those during. Wars also trigger sanctions and conditions against you: this is why the Russians refer to the Ukraine invasion as a "special military operation". It always comes a a surprise to me that lawyers are so heavily involved in warfare.
If she had such massive issues with Starmer and his leadership, his stance on trans rights, why on Earth did she stand under the Labour banner months ago for re-election?
She should do the honourable thing and have a by-election immediately.
She probably should call a by-election if she wants to damage Starmer. She would probably win - she’s reasonably well known and popular notwithstanding her interesting views on trans.
She’s the local MP for my vineyard and a number of others so at a stroke Labour’s vineyard count goes down catastrophically. Most British viticulture is in the hands of Lib Dems. It’s the first vineyard gains for independent.
From a quick eyeball Labour is losing mine plus Simpsons, Heppington, Chartham, Barnsole, Gorsley, and Tadpole, and several hundred hectares of Nyetimber vineyards plus a vast new planting on the Chartham downs that’s as yet unmarked.
Good morning one and all.
On the subject of vineyards, yesterday I tried, at a local food fair, a Pinot Noir from a Suffolk firm, until then unknown to me. Sadly, I found it thin. I still haven't found more than one decent full-bodied British red wine.
I had a nice Pinot Noir in Essex
But I wouldn’t do further than “nice”
I have now had lovely English whites and, of course, exceptional English Fizz
Its a great pity she lost her seat. She would have been a more effective leader of the opposition than any of the current 4 candidates.
She has a degree of flair but her previous attempt to stand for the leadership was distinctly unimpressive.
She was a Ron DeSantis last time out. Someone who speaks well and in theory ticks all the boxes, but ran an horrendous campaign and came out with some distinctly unusual beliefs.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
The only thing anyone under about 50 watches live on TV is sport. Something that the BBC has very little to show these days.
Not true in my case! And I'm some way off 50. That said I rarely if ever make a decision to watch a specific programme. I will sometimes flick through the channels and watch something that piques my fancy.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
Are you suggesting that the BBC has easy access to income streams, but they just haven’t bothered to spend the “time and effort” to realise them? Get real!
A masssive f***ing YES is the answer to that question.
They are an organisation sitting on one of the most valuable media archives in the world, and have done little to nothing to monetise it, being instead focussed on what they are producing today and tomorrow.
A lot of this media was produced decades ago, when the contracts didn’t know what the internet was, so there’s a job of work to get the licenceing sorted. But that’s exactly what Disney did, and they’re now making billions from their streaming service. The BBC mindset is totally risk-averse to this sort of venture.
That's why even now, I support an @moonshine sort of future for the BBC (possibly in collaboration with ITV/C4 being a publicly owned but commercial competitor to the big US media corporations.
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
If she had such massive issues with Starmer and his leadership, his stance on trans rights, why on Earth did she stand under the Labour banner months ago for re-election?
She should do the honourable thing and have a by-election immediately.
She probably should call a by-election if she wants to damage Starmer. She would probably win - she’s reasonably well known and popular notwithstanding her interesting views on trans.
She’s the local MP for my vineyard and a number of others so at a stroke Labour’s vineyard count goes down catastrophically. Most British viticulture is in the hands of Lib Dems. It’s the first vineyard gains for independent.
From a quick eyeball Labour is losing mine plus Simpsons, Heppington, Chartham, Barnsole, Gorsley, and Tadpole, and several hundred hectares of Nyetimber vineyards plus a vast new planting on the Chartham downs that’s as yet unmarked.
Good morning one and all.
On the subject of vineyards, yesterday I tried, at a local food fair, a Pinot Noir from a Suffolk firm, until then unknown to me. Sadly, I found it thin. I still haven't found more than one decent full-bodied British red wine.
Giffords Hall? Near bury st Edmond’s, I bumped into its owner on the train back from a viticulture event a couple oh years ago.
The best Pinots and the only that could be described as anything like “full bodied” (though that’s not really what pinots are supposed to be anyway) are from the Crouch valley in Essex. Try Danbury Ridge or Riverview Crouch Valley.
Otherwise you get fuller body in Pinot Precoce, which ripens earlier and tastes similar. Sixteen Ridges in Herefordshire makes a good one.
But we are still best at sparkling in this country. Still reds and whites remain a novelty, as they are in Champagne too, whereas sparkling is world class. This season’s challenging ripening conditions may be reminding winemakers of this fact. My Melon B is only at 14 brix now, my Pinot is 15-16, neither is enough to make decent still wine but is about a fortnight away from ideal for sparkling.
Yes, I recall trying the Giffords Hall, although carelessly I'd forgotten the name. I suppose 'full-bodied' isn't a fair description of a Pinot Noir, but IMHO anyway, they should have more body than the one I tried yesterday did. I don't know the Riverview Crouch Valley wines, although I'm not far away; must make enquiries. That's another issue with English wines; small scale. Had an 'interesting" sparkling from the Isle of Wight a few weeks ago; tasted OK, but for some reason best known to the vineyard, they'd coloured it blue.
Many years ago I visited a vineyard on the Isle of Wight that claimed to have been going since the Romans. The experience was pretty horrid - parked in a shed to watch a grainy VHS, then given horrid little tastings in shot glasses - their sparkling wasn't racked so there must have been a soda stream out the back. They clearly couldn't wait to offload the whole place. I then visited another one nearby as a (literal) palate cleanser, which was lovely.
I think you’re mixing the two up. The second, better, one claims it was a vineyard in Roman times (the villa is still there, below it) and makes passable white wine; last time I was there, the red, not so much. The other is known as a tourist operation and it is widely rumoured the owner admits (or boasts, depending on who you hear it from) that the wine is rubbish but makes no effort to improve it as most visitors will buy a bottle however bad it is.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
TRiE says the streamers are slowly moving back towards scheduled television, by putting up only one episode at a time, while at the same time the broadcasters are moving towards the streamers by placing whole series on iplayer or ITVx before terrestrial broadcast.
Its a great pity she lost her seat. She would have been a more effective leader of the opposition than any of the current 4 candidates.
She has a degree of flair but her previous attempt to stand for the leadership was distinctly unimpressive.
That's true but, frankly, they are all unimpressive in their own ways.
Her strengths are her wit and ability on her feet. Important areas for LOTO. Her record in government was somewhat uninspiring but that is frankly irrelevant for the Tories now. What they need is someone who will be heard and ultimately win them back something like 100 seats so that they are in a position to win the election after next and are not superseded by Reform. In short they need an effective LOTO, not a potential PM. They are far too far behind to worry about that.
Jared Kusher on the Twix overnight on Lebanon/Iran.
If I might paraphrase. Argues that an attack on Iranian nuclear sites was previously too risky due to the retaliation risk from Iran’s Ring of Fire proxies. Now that both Hamas and Hezzbolah are in disarray, the time has come to take out the Ayatollah’s bomb factories.
Put all that together with Trump’s public comments on Iran following the intelligence on their assassination attempts. And I think it’s a near cert that we see Top Gun 2 type stuff in early 2025 if he wins. Not impossible with a Harris victory either I guess.
A cynic might think he has several hundred million reasons ($) to say that. Courtesy of Iran's regional competition.
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
Starmer has dragged the Labour Party to the right of Reform with things like his support for starving Gaza, promises to deport people to Bangladesh, and his determination to freeze pensioners. The Tories will have a monopoly on the votes of decent people.
If she had such massive issues with Starmer and his leadership, his stance on trans rights, why on Earth did she stand under the Labour banner months ago for re-election?
She should do the honourable thing and have a by-election immediately.
She probably should call a by-election if she wants to damage Starmer. She would probably win - she’s reasonably well known and popular notwithstanding her interesting views on trans.
She’s the local MP for my vineyard and a number of others so at a stroke Labour’s vineyard count goes down catastrophically. Most British viticulture is in the hands of Lib Dems. It’s the first vineyard gains for independent.
From a quick eyeball Labour is losing mine plus Simpsons, Heppington, Chartham, Barnsole, Gorsley, and Tadpole, and several hundred hectares of Nyetimber vineyards plus a vast new planting on the Chartham downs that’s as yet unmarked.
Good morning one and all.
On the subject of vineyards, yesterday I tried, at a local food fair, a Pinot Noir from a Suffolk firm, until then unknown to me. Sadly, I found it thin. I still haven't found more than one decent full-bodied British red wine.
Giffords Hall? Near bury st Edmond’s, I bumped into its owner on the train back from a viticulture event a couple oh years ago.
The best Pinots and the only that could be described as anything like “full bodied” (though that’s not really what pinots are supposed to be anyway) are from the Crouch valley in Essex. Try Danbury Ridge or Riverview Crouch Valley.
Otherwise you get fuller body in Pinot Precoce, which ripens earlier and tastes similar. Sixteen Ridges in Herefordshire makes a good one.
But we are still best at sparkling in this country. Still reds and whites remain a novelty, as they are in Champagne too, whereas sparkling is world class. This season’s challenging ripening conditions may be reminding winemakers of this fact. My Melon B is only at 14 brix now, my Pinot is 15-16, neither is enough to make decent still wine but is about a fortnight away from ideal for sparkling.
Yes, I recall trying the Giffords Hall, although carelessly I'd forgotten the name. I suppose 'full-bodied' isn't a fair description of a Pinot Noir, but IMHO anyway, they should have more body than the one I tried yesterday did. I don't know the Riverview Crouch Valley wines, although I'm not far away; must make enquiries. That's another issue with English wines; small scale. Had an 'interesting" sparkling from the Isle of Wight a few weeks ago; tasted OK, but for some reason best known to the vineyard, they'd coloured it blue.
Many years ago I visited a vineyard on the Isle of Wight that claimed to have been going since the Romans. The experience was pretty horrid - parked in a shed to watch a grainy VHS, then given horrid little tastings in shot glasses - their sparkling wasn't racked so there must have been a soda stream out the back. They clearly couldn't wait to offload the whole place. I then visited another one nearby as a (literal) palate cleanser, which was lovely.
I think you’re mixing the two up. The second, better, one (Adgestone) claims it was a vineyard in Roman times (the villa is still there, below it) and makes passable white wine; last time I was there, the red, not so much. The other one is known as a tourist operation and it is widely rumoured the owner admits the wine is rubbish but makes no effort to improve it as most visitors will buy a bottle however bad it is.
No, I'm not, but this was many many years ago - the place could have changed hands (and the other one) more than once since then. Adgestone was the first one. Grim. The other one we only went to the shop but they made their fizz the traditional way and were happy to chat with us about their business and wine in general.
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
Starmer has dragged the Labour Party to the right of Reform with things like his support for starving Gaza, promises to deport people to Bangladesh, and his determination to freeze pensioners. The Tories will have a monopoly on the votes of decent people.
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
I think there is a chance the Duffield intervention has rather popped the bubble on this scandal. Just a bit too personal, too aggressive.
It's allowed it to descend into internecine warfare (over trans, like the good ol' days) rather than slowly cutting into Starmer.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
Must talk to my grandchildren about this. For myself I can't abide watching sport when I know the result. Anything else I can happily watch whenever.
Last year less than a third of 16-24 year olds watch 15 consecutive minutes or more of BBC content (inc catchup) in an average week.
Two of my British grandchildren fall into that bracket. As I said, must ask them.
I’m pretty close to it myself (the ‘hardly watches the BBC’, not the age bracket!). The radio, on the other hand, is almost always on when I’m in, or driving.
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
I think there is a chance the Duffield intervention has rather popped the bubble on this scandal. Just a bit too personal, too aggressive.
It's allowed it to descend into internecine warfare (over trans, like the good ol' days) rather than slowly cutting into Starmer.
I am loving these hot takes on the Duffield letter.
Keep plugging away guys, there has to be a silver lining to this somewhere.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
And radio. It tends to get forgotten, but still has a very large audience. A lot of dross, but many gems, too.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
Are you suggesting that the BBC has easy access to income streams, but they just haven’t bothered to spend the “time and effort” to realise them? Get real!
A masssive f***ing YES is the answer to that question.
They are an organisation sitting on one of the most valuable media archives in the world, and have done little to nothing to monetise it, being instead focussed on what they are producing today and tomorrow.
A lot of this media was produced decades ago, when the contracts didn’t know what the internet was, so there’s a job of work to get the licenceing sorted. But that’s exactly what Disney did, and they’re now making billions from their streaming service. The BBC mindset is totally risk-averse to this sort of venture.
Do you have any evidence for this claim? Are you an expert in streaming licensing rights?
Disney+ does have a revenue of about $20 billion a year, but I note Disney+ burnt through about $11.5 billion in losses before it started turning a profit this year. Their profit in 2024 Q3 was only £47 million. Who is going to provide an equivalent $11.5 billion investment for your plan for the BBC?
Badenoch says 'Israel showing moral clarity in dealing with its enemies'
Well, yes. Wars tend to add moral clarity. That's kind of the point.
Somebody once said that wars can be seen as a way of changing the legislative frame: the laws you abide by prior are different to those during. Wars also trigger sanctions and conditions against you: this is why the Russians refer to the Ukraine invasion as a "special military operation". It always comes a a surprise to me that lawyers are so heavily involved in warfare.
Not really moral clarity - unless by that she just means manichean ?
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
TRiE says the streamers are slowly moving back towards scheduled television, by putting up only one episode at a time, while at the same time the broadcasters are moving towards the streamers by placing whole series on iplayer or ITVx before terrestrial broadcast.
Yes the streamers are doing some playing around with scheduling, for example AppleTV are currently releasing the new season of Slow Horses weekly, Netflix have done a couple of live comedy events this year, notably the new Joe Rogan special and The Roast of Tom Brady, and Amazon have bought up some sports rights which obviously stream live.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
The BBC already sells its programmes worldwide, either as the finished article or as licensed formats. Some are already co-productions with foreign broadcasters, such as Dr Who. However, some of the rights to what we think of as BBC programmes are held by independent production companies. Conversely, the BBC pays for formats too, such as The Apprentice, once the major income source for its executive producer, one DJ Trump.
I know someone who works in the rights/intellectual property area at the BBC. When he stops swearing about the problems, he is quite clear that the BBC gives away far too much and often gets little in return. Especially when they find productions to a level that the production company makes a profit - then makes more profit selling the program as a “BBC program” internationally.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
I think there is a chance the Duffield intervention has rather popped the bubble on this scandal. Just a bit too personal, too aggressive.
It's allowed it to descend into internecine warfare (over trans, like the good ol' days) rather than slowly cutting into Starmer.
lol
TwiX is already building up to the Starmer revelation
The assassins are not done yet. They may not succeed, but they clearly have a plan and a process and we have seen only part
Asked about the donations from The Spott Fitness, which have been declared on his MPs' register of interests, Mr Jenrick said: "As I understand it, this is a fitness company that operates in the UK.
"It's a perfectly legal and valid donation under British law and we've set it out in the public domain in the way that one does with donations."
Pressed for details on who owns the company and who works for it, the former immigration minister said this would be set out "on Companies House in the normal way" and he has "obviously met people who are involved in the company".
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Last year the average Brit watched about 46 minutes of BBC content a day (inc catchup), down from about 70 minutes in 2016. Once that gets below below a certain level - perhaps 20 or 10 minutes a day - forced funding of it really does look unviable.
Many countries have television licences. They are not unique to Britain or the BBC.
If few end up watching it then it’s just overpaid make-work for people who couldn’t hack it in the regular market.
Apparently, there’s a faction in the BBC that wants to move to an ISP tax. X per Gb of data provided in the U.K.
Looks like Rosie Duffield has overplayed her hand by blaming 'the lads'. That all sounds a bit wokey uppity feminist. And it means the Tories and Reform will have to attack Sir Keir from the left if they want to side with her. Sir Keir can live with that.
Starmer has dragged the Labour Party to the right of Reform with things like his support for starving Gaza, promises to deport people to Bangladesh, and his determination to freeze pensioners. The Tories will have a monopoly on the votes of decent people.
Decent people who want to kick all the Muslims out?
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
And radio. It tends to get forgotten, but still has a very large audience. A lot of dross, but many gems, too.
The RAJAR figures for Q2 2024 continue to highlight how audiences value BBC Radio with 32m people tuning in each week for live output across the stations, with a share of 42.6%. The biggest population increase in 75 years now sees a record 50.8 million people in the UK listening to radio.
There was a boost for Radio 1 and Greg James’ Breakfast Show, which remains the biggest breakfast show in the UK for young people. The start of the summer of sport also saw listener figures increase for BBC Radio 5 Live and BBC 5 Sports Extra, although this period does not include Wimbledon or the final of Men’s Euro 2024.
I find many fingers angrily jabbing in the direction of Simon Case, the Boris Johnson-appointed cabinet secretary. If I were to sink a beer every time I hear a Labour person say he needs to be ushered out of the building as soon as possible, I would require hospital treatment for alcohol poisoning.
Probably, and also that all the candidates are being interviewed by anyone with a camera just now and no-one looks head and shoulders above the rest, and then there is also just discussion between MPs and activists as their party conference opens.
Its a great pity she lost her seat. She would have been a more effective leader of the opposition than any of the current 4 candidates.
She has a degree of flair but her previous attempt to stand for the leadership was distinctly unimpressive.
That's true but, frankly, they are all unimpressive in their own ways.
Her strengths are her wit and ability on her feet. Important areas for LOTO. Her record in government was somewhat uninspiring but that is frankly irrelevant for the Tories now. What they need is someone who will be heard and ultimately win them back something like 100 seats so that they are in a position to win the election after next and are not superseded by Reform. In short they need an effective LOTO, not a potential PM. They are far too far behind to worry about that.
Problem is Mordaunt is too woke for Reform voters.
It is of course not impossible if Jenrick or Badenoch become Tory leader and get a hung parliament at the next GE you could get a Tory and Reform coalition government, if say the Tories got 280 seats and Reform 50 seats with both gaining seats from Labour. Even if a Tory majority is very unlikely without winning back most Home counties seats they lost to the LDs too
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
And radio. It tends to get forgotten, but still has a very large audience. A lot of dross, but many gems, too.
The RAJAR figures for Q2 2024 continue to highlight how audiences value BBC Radio with 32m people tuning in each week for live output across the stations, with a share of 42.6%. The biggest population increase in 75 years now sees a record 50.8 million people in the UK listening to radio.
There was a boost for Radio 1 and Greg James’ Breakfast Show, which remains the biggest breakfast show in the UK for young people. The start of the summer of sport also saw listener figures increase for BBC Radio 5 Live and BBC 5 Sports Extra, although this period does not include Wimbledon or the final of Men’s Euro 2024.
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
The BBC has made some of the best documentaries and dramas in the world, particularly between the 1960s and 1990s, which are woefully under-repesented by BBC4, whose increasing predictability relative to the BBC' s incredible heritage, is beginning to verge on a scandal for a public broadcaster with that history. As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
A scan over the last 3 or 4 years shows me a vast number of excellent dramas and documentaries, in amongst some dross.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
I'm not idealogically opposed to the BBC I just don't watch anything that requires a TV licence, but would we miss it? I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up. The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change. The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
The only thing anyone under about 50 watches live on TV is sport. Something that the BBC has very little to show these days.
Not true in my case! And I'm some way off 50. That said I rarely if ever make a decision to watch a specific programme. I will sometimes flick through the channels and watch something that piques my fancy.
I tend to watch the news live, rather than a week later on catch-up.
Actually, other than the news, Look North and football, the only BBC programme I've watched recently as it was broadcast was Sewing Bee.
Badenoch says 'Israel showing moral clarity in dealing with its enemies'
Well, yes. Wars tend to add moral clarity. That's kind of the point.
Somebody once said that wars can be seen as a way of changing the legislative frame: the laws you abide by prior are different to those during. Wars also trigger sanctions and conditions against you: this is why the Russians refer to the Ukraine invasion as a "special military operation". It always comes a a surprise to me that lawyers are so heavily involved in warfare.
Not really moral clarity - unless by that she just means manichean ?
See also, GWB and Iraq.
Actually when it comes to Israel's enemies a manichean view isn't such a bad idea. That being said wars need to be fought with a strategy. And one can't ignore the fact that Israel's Prime minister doesn't necessarily have much of a future when the fighting stops due to corruption charges, his failure to protect the borders on 7 October and his previously ambiguous position on Hamas
When you are a public service broadcaster, then being funded by the public is not such a bad idea. A bit like that way we fund schools and hospitals, extorting all that cash out of the people who never use them.
There are reasons why the taxpayer isn't on the line for BBC funding - some good, some less so - and so some other way of 'extorting' the public has been found.
Once you are a subscription model, you are owned politically by those who choose to subscribe. (Nothing wrong with that - Speccie, NS, Economist all use that model). But that isn't right for 'public service broadcasting.
I almost never watch telly but have a licence, but BBC Radio/Sounds (R4, R3, World Service, R5, News) is worth way more than I pay.
Just fund the BBC largely by adverts for Eastenders, Strictly etc and otherwise have some government subsidy for high culture and arts and serious current affairs programmes and major sport spread amongst all broadcasters (whether the latter from a TV licence or tax)
If a concerted push was made on the rights for various programs, turn the license fee into encryption. Sell worldwide.
No, the partial and chopped down existing versions of this are not enough.
I reckon that enough money could be made selling BBC full content, around the world, to more than fund it.
Which would give real independence for the BBC.
Yes, most of the drama they make is co-production with the other party keeping the worldwide rights.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
Are you suggesting that the BBC has easy access to income streams, but they just haven’t bothered to spend the “time and effort” to realise them? Get real!
A masssive f***ing YES is the answer to that question.
They are an organisation sitting on one of the most valuable media archives in the world, and have done little to nothing to monetise it, being instead focussed on what they are producing today and tomorrow.
A lot of this media was produced decades ago, when the contracts didn’t know what the internet was, so there’s a job of work to get the licenceing sorted. But that’s exactly what Disney did, and they’re now making billions from their streaming service. The BBC mindset is totally risk-averse to this sort of venture.
Do you have any evidence for this claim? Are you an expert in streaming licensing rights?
Disney+ does have a revenue of about $20 billion a year, but I note Disney+ burnt through about $11.5 billion in losses before it started turning a profit this year. Their profit in 2024 Q3 was only £47 million. Who is going to provide an equivalent $11.5 billion investment for your plan for the BBC?
Here is a good summary of the issues, ranging from picture and sound quality, to music rights, to residual payments to actors.
The BBC has already made the investment on the platform itself, it would be trivial to put up most content from the last few years straight away, and then slowly work their way through the back catalogue over time.
Comments
If I might paraphrase. Argues that an attack on Iranian nuclear sites was previously too risky due to the retaliation risk from Iran’s Ring of Fire proxies. Now that both Hamas and Hezzbolah are in disarray, the time has come to take out the Ayatollah’s bomb factories.
Put all that together with Trump’s public comments on Iran following the intelligence on their assassination attempts. And I think it’s a near cert that we see Top Gun 2 type stuff in early 2025 if he wins. Not impossible with a Harris victory either I guess.
On the subject of vineyards, yesterday I tried, at a local food fair, a Pinot Noir from a Suffolk firm, until then unknown to me. Sadly, I found it thin.
I still haven't found more than one decent full-bodied British red wine.
I'm so relieved that the Ukrainians have been able to develop an independent long-range strike capability, and I'd like to think Britain was supporting those efforts.
(It also depends on how you define 'beat'. Mrs J had Covid for a second time last week, so it's not 'beaten' in that sense. But it is beaten in the sense that life can pretty much go on as normal with Covid about in its present form and severity.)
I'd have liked to see the Yes-No for "Irrelevant".
It's interesting that in the long list of categories of "Who do the conservatives care about?", disabled people do not afaics even make Yougov's list of categories.
Down the page:
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50610-party-conferences-2024-what-do-britons-think-of-the-conservatives
Dr Who, notably, did a deal with Disney for worldwide streaming rights. The money that raised is enough to pay to make Dr Who. Where’s the extra money to pay for all the other, less profitable bits of the BBC?
It's possible that downgrading the consequences for non-payment will be the tipping point in Britain.
The main state channel, ERT1, has news, advertisements and gameshows, and one of the other channels, I think either ERT2 or ERT3, has more upmarket content.I saw a beautifully made programme on it this morning, on the Ancient Greek philosophers, and with Greek, Italian, British and American contributors, that was of the calibre the BBC would have made in the '80s.
Perhaps there's an opening there for an enterprising lawyer.
The claim warms the cockles of my heart.
(It won't be, but I'd like to think something like this happened: "Oh dear, the schematics for this weapon have accidently been left on this USB stick in my desk. I hope no Ukrainian engineers come across it, or the machine tools that we've left in a lorry parked at Dover...")
Or the Russians could just be lying.
Just say "No" is the only logical answer.
They do have soaps, some documentaries, and some entertainment formats they licence elsewhere, but they don’t have Top Gear any more which was the real moneyspinner.
Yes, if they spent the time and effort to get the archive appropriately licenced, they could do what Disney have done and set up a worldwide online platform that millions of people would pay for, and which could fund the current activities of the Corporation.
Not that it is clear how Badenoch would operationalise her comments. Does she mean adjusting the rules for different countries? Does she mean assessing individual would-be migrants before they can enter the country?
"In the last 12 weeks Labour have brought doubt to the economy, fear to the elderly and a touch of Imelda Marcos to the Office of Prime Minister."
https://x.com/PennyMordaunt/status/1840326636589228159
iplayer was first out the streaming door, there was a decades long catalogue of content, and the UK is one of the finest places in the world for creative industries content creation. Netflix would have been dead on arrival and the beeb would now be worth a few hundred billion.
As I've mentioned before, now I have to come to countries like France and Greece to see genuinely challenging documentaries, for instance.
It was the freebies, cronyism, WFP and the two child cap that caused her to take her principled stance no matter how embarrassing for an ever detached leaderships
Starmers problems are sitting behind him
And, the difficult question for all the candidates, why did Tory policy in the many years Badenoch and the others were ministers not do these things?
The best Pinots and the only that could be described as anything like “full bodied” (though that’s not really what pinots are supposed to be anyway) are from the Crouch valley in Essex. Try Danbury Ridge or Riverview Crouch Valley.
Otherwise you get fuller body in Pinot Precoce, which ripens earlier and tastes similar. Sixteen Ridges in Herefordshire makes a good one.
But we are still best at sparkling in this country. Still reds and whites remain a novelty, as they are in Champagne too, whereas sparkling is world class. This season’s challenging ripening conditions may be reminding winemakers of this fact. My Melon B is only at 14 brix now, my Pinot is 15-16, neither is enough to make decent still wine but is about a fortnight away from ideal for sparkling.
I am very glad that such attitudes are now anathema but not convinced that a Tory party that opposed nearly every liberalisation is a viable champion. Gay marriage only passed with opposition votes to cite a fairly recent example.
It was ever thus. We all suffer from selective memory bias: we remember the best stuff from the past and forget the shit. And boy was there a lot of shit on TV when I was growing up. Same phenomenon with pop music, art, movies.
We also get the same selectivity with foreign dramas. What reaches us here is the very best. We don’t get the crap.
British TV is one of our greatest cultural exports and a big chunk of it is made or commissioned by the beeb. We’d miss it if it went.
They are an organisation sitting on one of the most valuable media archives in the world, and have done little to nothing to monetise it, being instead focussed on what they are producing today and tomorrow.
A lot of this media was produced decades ago, when the contracts didn’t know what the internet was, so there’s a job of work to get the licenceing sorted. But that’s exactly what Disney did, and they’re now making billions from their streaming service. The BBC mindset is totally risk-averse to this sort of venture.
The best bits in the Boris Johnson memoirs are the unintentional revelations. Here, we learn that the Queen read government briefings, and he didn't.
https://x.com/RobDotHutton/status/1840318750727282958
Yep, if there's one way I would describe Johnson being dragged out of Downing Street yelling "You'll want me back! You've never had better! You total bastards!", it's "general lack of bitterness".
https://x.com/RobDotHutton/status/1840319483694469180
"In retrospect, I should simply have lied much harder."
https://x.com/RobDotHutton/status/1840323789910847715
Rasmussen have sought to distort the averages to Trump's advantage. They tend to herd at the election date which gives them some protection from accusations of bias but this has got rather old and people have noticed. These latest disclosures are simply the icing on the cake.
The bad news is that it’s pretty much the only thing they’ve got going for them right now. They are still deeply unpopular, and while I don’t quite share the same level of certainty as some on here re the direness of the leadership candidates, charitably I don’t think any of them are great.
The main job for the Tories in the next few years is to position themselves to as best build an electoral coalition to fight Labour. That’s easier said than done, but if they don’t manage that then you have the real potential for third party surges.
I am still expecting a poll in the next 12-24 months that has Ref, Lab and Con all hovering around 25%, for what it’s worth.
I don't know the Riverview Crouch Valley wines, although I'm not far away; must make enquiries.
That's another issue with English wines; small scale.
Had an 'interesting" sparkling from the Isle of Wight a few weeks ago; tasted OK, but for some reason best known to the vineyard, they'd coloured it blue.
I'd wager the majority of under 30s rarely even think about the BBC. Certainly my 3 boys, and their friends never watch it, or indeed any live TV and haven't done so for 10 years. They'd never sit down at a certain time to watch a programme live. If they had to watch it, it'd be on catch up.
The BBC is becoming less and less relevant as younger people's viewing habits change.
The BBC has no option but to change, and that's going to have to include the way it is funded.
They need to sort their out shit out and get there own house in order before they'll even get a hearing.
I find many fingers angrily jabbing in the direction of Simon Case, the Boris Johnson-appointed cabinet secretary. If I were to sink a beer every time I hear a Labour person say he needs to be ushered out of the building as soon as possible, I would require hospital treatment for alcohol poisoning.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/28/keir-starmer-no-10-ministers
So Labour are now blaming The Blob.
Somebody once said that wars can be seen as a way of changing the legislative frame: the laws you abide by prior are different to those during. Wars also trigger sanctions and conditions against you: this is why the Russians refer to the Ukraine invasion as a "special military operation". It always comes a a surprise to me that lawyers are so heavily involved in warfare.
But I wouldn’t do further than “nice”
I have now had lovely English whites and, of course, exceptional English Fizz
Her strengths are her wit and ability on her feet. Important areas for LOTO. Her record in government was somewhat uninspiring but that is frankly irrelevant for the Tories now. What they need is someone who will be heard and ultimately win them back something like 100 seats so that they are in a position to win the election after next and are not superseded by Reform. In short they need an effective LOTO, not a potential PM. They are far too far behind to worry about that.
Courtesy of Iran's regional competition.
https://news.sky.com/story/robert-jenrick-defends-75-000-donation-after-criticising-labour-in-freebies-row-13224393
It's allowed it to descend into internecine warfare (over trans, like the good ol' days) rather than slowly cutting into Starmer.
Keep plugging away guys, there has to be a silver lining to this somewhere.
It tends to get forgotten, but still has a very large audience.
A lot of dross, but many gems, too.
Disney+ does have a revenue of about $20 billion a year, but I note Disney+ burnt through about $11.5 billion in losses before it started turning a profit this year. Their profit in 2024 Q3 was only £47 million. Who is going to provide an equivalent $11.5 billion investment for your plan for the BBC?
See also, GWB and Iraq.
TwiX is already building up to the Starmer revelation
The assassins are not done yet. They may not succeed, but they clearly have a plan and a process and we have seen only part
Asked about the donations from The Spott Fitness, which have been declared on his MPs' register of interests, Mr Jenrick said: "As I understand it, this is a fitness company that operates in the UK.
"It's a perfectly legal and valid donation under British law and we've set it out in the public domain in the way that one does with donations."
Pressed for details on who owns the company and who works for it, the former immigration minister said this would be set out "on Companies House in the normal way" and he has "obviously met people who are involved in the company".
Not entirely convinced by that!
That's the dog whistle Kemi is blowing.
The RAJAR figures for Q2 2024 continue to highlight how audiences value BBC Radio with 32m people tuning in each week for live output across the stations, with a share of 42.6%. The biggest population increase in 75 years now sees a record 50.8 million people in the UK listening to radio.
There was a boost for Radio 1 and Greg James’ Breakfast Show, which remains the biggest breakfast show in the UK for young people. The start of the summer of sport also saw listener figures increase for BBC Radio 5 Live and BBC 5 Sports Extra, although this period does not include Wimbledon or the final of Men’s Euro 2024.
Must write my header on The Blob.
It is of course not impossible if Jenrick or Badenoch become Tory leader and get a hung parliament at the next GE you could get a Tory and Reform coalition government, if say the Tories got 280 seats and Reform 50 seats with both gaining seats from Labour. Even if a Tory majority is very unlikely without winning back most Home counties seats they lost to the LDs too
Actually, other than the news, Look North and football, the only BBC programme I've watched recently as it was broadcast was Sewing Bee.
https://www.vulture.com/2016/11/why-cant-these-shows-be-found-on-streaming.html
The BBC has already made the investment on the platform itself, it would be trivial to put up most content from the last few years straight away, and then slowly work their way through the back catalogue over time.