A German family has lived in the same place for 3,000 years
Scientists have discovered that the Huchthausen family from the village of Förste (Lower Saxony) has lived there continuously for around three millennia, Bild reports.
DNA analysis showed that the ancestors of Manfred Huchthausen lived just two kilometers away — in the Lichtenstein Cave, where archaeologists found human remains buried around 1000 BC, along with bronze jewelry, animal bones, and traces of funeral pyres.
Researchers believe these ancient inhabitants of the Harz region traded salt — the “white gold” of the Bronze Age.
The local museum director noted that they looked almost identical to their modern descendants.
*What did happen to him ? He was occasionally entertaining.
Pah, 3000 years, there’s the chap in who lives Cheddar gorge who is a direct descendant of “Cheddar Man” who was found from over 9,000 years ago.
As discussed some time ago, we are all descendants of everyone alive 9000 years ago [who has any living descenants]. And ‘direct’ has no meaning in this context.
[Slight qualification]
But yes, what does 'direct' descendant mean? What's an indirect descendant?
IANAE but to me an indirect descendent would would be relatives with an identifiable common ancestor. So while, for example, Charles III is a direct descendent of Alfred the Great (not a provable matter I suppose, but there it is in the family tree!) but is an indirect descendent of Princess Margaret or George VI's brother Edward VIII.
Once you get back a bit this seems to get hard. I hesitate to suggest that, for example, Charles in an indirect descendent of Alfred's brother Ethelbald because I bet he's a direct one and that someone can tell me so.
Charles Moore once suggested in that journal of record the Spectator that HMQEII was a direct descendent of Mohammed, through, IIRC, King Pedro the Cruel. I do hope that is correct.
Charles is not a descendant of Princess Margaret at all. And Edward VIII had no descendants at all as far as we know, so Charles is certainly not Edward's descendant, direct or otherwise*.
(*Let's not start any scurrilous rumours involving the Queen Mother and Edward.)
KCIII *is* a collateral descendant of KEVIII. Who was brother of his granddad. But not, so far as we know, as you say, a direct descendant.
One of the things that I’ll miss about the BBC is the fact it doesn’t carry ads. A bit like PB in that respect.
Of course I was musing this while eating a Hobnob and I really think they improve my posts no end. McVitie’s Hobnobs are golden-baked to perfection, to create the moreishly crunchy, oaty biscuit.
Sit down with a cuppa and post on PB while enjoying a Hobnob, with or without the BBC.
Why doctor anything to make Trump look a fool, when it is clear that without any doctoring that POTUS is an erratic, egotistical, venal rascal.
I was unimpressed by the overall BBC coverage of last year's GE, and thought it was too slow and clunky.
The recent furore over Gaza coverage might have been avoided with more care. Too few clips refer to restrictions imposed by Hamas or Palestine - compare the way in which BBC covered South Africa before Mandela became President. Perhaps too many experienced editors have retired early.
But why destroy a reputation by doctoring footage of Trump?
Nandy must be so pleased to see that her own behaviour over The Football Regulator appointment is suddenly moving off the headline pages.
Maybe Sky will make a bid for the BBC to add to ITV !!!!!
I said it before, sell the BBC to Paul Marshall for a pound.
Thought before that Reform would almost certainly do that if they get in. Not exactly hiding the fact they want to destroy it and selling it off to a right winger - not just getting rid of the Licence Fee - would essentially be salting the earth so no left wing government could 'bring it back'.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
Only a very few of us boomers got to go to uni, so we didn't get free uni tuition.
Hang on, didn't you get subsistence grants from your county/Scottish Education Dept, if you did get in [edit]? Admittedly means tested according to parental income,m and supplemented accordingly by the Bank of Mum and Dad. But tuition fees were paid.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
The price of not voting as much as the oldies do. Its expensive.
Price of an ageing population. Median age in UK is about 40, so the median voting age is probably what... 50?
A German family has lived in the same place for 3,000 years
Scientists have discovered that the Huchthausen family from the village of Förste (Lower Saxony) has lived there continuously for around three millennia, Bild reports.
DNA analysis showed that the ancestors of Manfred Huchthausen lived just two kilometers away — in the Lichtenstein Cave, where archaeologists found human remains buried around 1000 BC, along with bronze jewelry, animal bones, and traces of funeral pyres.
Researchers believe these ancient inhabitants of the Harz region traded salt — the “white gold” of the Bronze Age.
The local museum director noted that they looked almost identical to their modern descendants.
*What did happen to him ? He was occasionally entertaining.
Pah, 3000 years, there’s the chap in who lives Cheddar gorge who is a direct descendant of “Cheddar Man” who was found from over 9,000 years ago.
As discussed some time ago, we are all descendants of everyone alive 9000 years ago [who has any living descenants]. And ‘direct’ has no meaning in this context.
[Slight qualification]
But yes, what does 'direct' descendant mean? What's an indirect descendant?
IANAE but to me an indirect descendent would would be relatives with an identifiable common ancestor. So while, for example, Charles III is a direct descendent of Alfred the Great (not a provable matter I suppose, but there it is in the family tree!) but is an indirect descendent of Princess Margaret or George VI's brother Edward VIII.
Once you get back a bit this seems to get hard. I hesitate to suggest that, for example, Charles in an indirect descendent of Alfred's brother Ethelbald because I bet he's a direct one and that someone can tell me so.
Charles Moore once suggested in that journal of record the Spectator that HMQEII was a direct descendent of Mohammed, through, IIRC, King Pedro the Cruel. I do hope that is correct.
Charles is not a descendant of Princess Margaret at all. And Edward VIII had no descendants at all as far as we know, so Charles is certainly not Edward's descendant, direct or otherwise*.
(*Let's not start any scurrilous rumours involving the Queen Mother and Edward.)
I think I am suggesting that indirect descent is just collateral descent. Of which Wikipedia says thus:
Collateral descent is contrasted with lineal descent: those related directly by a line of descent such as the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. of an individual. Though both forms are consanguineal (blood relations), collaterals are neither ancestors nor descendants of a given person.[3] In legal terminology, 'Collateral descendant' refers to relatives descended from a sibling of an ancestor, and thus a niece, nephew, or cousin.[4]
Wiki is unambiguously clear is saying that this both does and does not constitute descent.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
Salary sacrifice is too generous imo, and obviously mainly used by those well off. Suspect this will raise even more than predicted.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
Only a very few of us boomers got to go to uni, so we didn't get free uni tuition.
Hang on, didn't you get subsistence grants from your county/Scottish Education Dept, if you did get in [edit]? Admittedly means tested according to parental income,m and supplemented accordingly by the Bank of Mum and Dad. But tuition fees were paid.
I was working part-time doing data-input when the original tuition fees came in. For the student loans company (well, a sub-contractor who was subsequently found not to be paying tax, and closed down - in a surprise to no-one).
But there was clearly a student-led "Fill in the forms but make them as illegible as possible! That'll show 'em!" campaign going on.
Which, as I sat trying to type illegible handwriting into an early 90s PC at 4am on my overnight shift with the threat of being sacked if my key-depressions-per-hour or 'accuracy' fell below target - really made me sympathise with them.
One of the things that I’ll miss about the BBC is the fact it doesn’t carry ads. A bit like PB in that respect.
Of course I was musing this while eating a Hobnob and I really think they improve my posts no end. McVitie’s Hobnobs are golden-baked to perfection, to create the moreishly crunchy, oaty biscuit.
Sit down with a cuppa and post on PB while enjoying a Hobnob, with or without the BBC.
Shouldn't the people who made and broadcasted the edit of Trump's speech get the sack along with the editors and reporters of the other misleading news items documented in Michael Prescott's report?
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
90% of boomers never went to university. The tweeter will also get the triple lock as it stands when they retire
When many boomers worked there were not really many companies offering pensions either.
So the boomers had (and some still have) to rely on the state pension, which is the one with the triple lock.
An equally great problem was the appalling treatment of peoplke who had to move between private/company pension schemes. That was also entirely down to the commercial sector. I can't remember when that reform came in to ameliorate it, but it was huge. 1980?
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
Only a very few of us boomers got to go to uni, so we didn't get free uni tuition.
Hang on, didn't you get subsistence grants from your county/Scottish Education Dept, if you did get in [edit]? Admittedly means tested according to parental income,m and supplemented accordingly by the Bank of Mum and Dad. But tuition fees were paid.
Oh, yes, AIUI everything was paid for. But since so few of us were able to go to uni at all, it wasn't a benefit that many of us received.
I don't dispute at all that we've ended up with terrible generational unfairness, but that specific example isn't genuine.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
Only a very few of us boomers got to go to uni, so we didn't get free uni tuition.
Hang on, didn't you get subsistence grants from your county/Scottish Education Dept, if you did get in [edit]? Admittedly means tested according to parental income,m and supplemented accordingly by the Bank of Mum and Dad. But tuition fees were paid.
I was working part-time doing data-input when the original tuition fees came in. For the student loans company (well, a sub-contractor who was subsequently found not to be paying tax, and closed down - in a surprise to no-one).
But there was clearly a student-led "Fill in the forms but make them as illegible as possible! That'll show 'em!" campaign going on.
Which, as I sat trying to type illegible handwriting into an early 90s PC at 4am on my overnight shift with the threat of being sacked if my key-depressions-per-hour or 'accuracy' fell below target - really made me sympathise with them.
After our time - thank goodness - if alas not yours.
Shouldn't the people who made and broadcasted the edit of Trump's speech get the sack along with the editors and reporters of the other misleading news items documented in Michael Prescott's report?
It wasn't misleading, unless you are arguing Trump did not incite a riot (which he obviously did)
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
Only a very few of us boomers got to go to uni, so we didn't get free uni tuition.
Hang on, didn't you get subsistence grants from your county/Scottish Education Dept, if you did get in [edit]? Admittedly means tested according to parental income,m and supplemented accordingly by the Bank of Mum and Dad. But tuition fees were paid.
Oh, yes, AIUI everything was paid for. But since so few of us were able to go to uni at all, it wasn't a benefit that many of us received.
I don't dispute at all that we've ended up with terrible generational unfairness, but that specific example isn't genuine.
Not everything was paid for by the state, of course - and indeed I recently discovered in my deceased mother's papers the cancelled cheque she'd sent me for my first trance of the parental share of subsistence in 1976.
Moreover of course that a lot of people went to polys or FE, or apprenticeships ... but still.
A German family has lived in the same place for 3,000 years
Scientists have discovered that the Huchthausen family from the village of Förste (Lower Saxony) has lived there continuously for around three millennia, Bild reports.
DNA analysis showed that the ancestors of Manfred Huchthausen lived just two kilometers away — in the Lichtenstein Cave, where archaeologists found human remains buried around 1000 BC, along with bronze jewelry, animal bones, and traces of funeral pyres.
Researchers believe these ancient inhabitants of the Harz region traded salt — the “white gold” of the Bronze Age.
The local museum director noted that they looked almost identical to their modern descendants.
*What did happen to him ? He was occasionally entertaining.
Pah, 3000 years, there’s the chap in who lives Cheddar gorge who is a direct descendant of “Cheddar Man” who was found from over 9,000 years ago.
As discussed some time ago, we are all descendants of everyone alive 9000 years ago [who has any living descenants]. And ‘direct’ has no meaning in this context.
[Slight qualification]
But yes, what does 'direct' descendant mean? What's an indirect descendant?
IANAE but to me an indirect descendent would would be relatives with an identifiable common ancestor. So while, for example, Charles III is a direct descendent of Alfred the Great (not a provable matter I suppose, but there it is in the family tree!) but is an indirect descendent of Princess Margaret or George VI's brother Edward VIII.
Once you get back a bit this seems to get hard. I hesitate to suggest that, for example, Charles in an indirect descendent of Alfred's brother Ethelbald because I bet he's a direct one and that someone can tell me so.
Charles Moore once suggested in that journal of record the Spectator that HMQEII was a direct descendent of Mohammed, through, IIRC, King Pedro the Cruel. I do hope that is correct.
Charles is not a descendant of Princess Margaret at all. And Edward VIII had no descendants at all as far as we know, so Charles is certainly not Edward's descendant, direct or otherwise*.
(*Let's not start any scurrilous rumours involving the Queen Mother and Edward.)
I think I am suggesting that indirect descent is just collateral descent. Of which Wikipedia says thus:
Collateral descent is contrasted with lineal descent: those related directly by a line of descent such as the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. of an individual. Though both forms are consanguineal (blood relations), collaterals are neither ancestors nor descendants of a given person.[3] In legal terminology, 'Collateral descendant' refers to relatives descended from a sibling of an ancestor, and thus a niece, nephew, or cousin.[4]
Wiki is unambiguously clear is saying that this both does and does not constitute descent.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
The price of not voting as much as the oldies do. Its expensive.
Price of an ageing population. Median age in UK is about 40, so the median voting age is probably what... 50?
Shouldn't the people who made and broadcasted the edit of Trump's speech get the sack along with the editors and reporters of the other misleading news items documented in Michael Prescott's report?
It wasn't misleading, unless you are arguing Trump did not incite a riot (which he obviously did)
I have listened to it with an explanation on Sky and certainly it does not say what you think it does as their reporter affirmed
Shouldn't the people who made and broadcasted the edit of Trump's speech get the sack along with the editors and reporters of the other misleading news items documented in Michael Prescott's report?
It wasn't misleading, unless you are arguing Trump did not incite a riot (which he obviously did)
One of the things that I’ll miss about the BBC is the fact it doesn’t carry ads. A bit like PB in that respect.
Of course I was musing this while eating a Hobnob and I really think they improve my posts no end. McVitie’s Hobnobs are golden-baked to perfection, to create the moreishly crunchy, oaty biscuit.
Sit down with a cuppa and post on PB while enjoying a Hobnob, with or without the BBC.
(other oat biscuits are available)
Bbc doesn't carry ads for me. I record everything and fast forward past all the dross trailers.
Shouldn't the people who made and broadcasted the edit of Trump's speech get the sack along with the editors and reporters of the other misleading news items documented in Michael Prescott's report?
It wasn't misleading, unless you are arguing Trump did not incite a riot (which he obviously did)
If the objective is to show that Mr Trump incited that riot, why not use the footage that actually shows it, rather than cut'n'splice a doctored version?
By far the biggest issue with the press misreporting Trump is the sanewashing, which essentially all the media in the UK does. The best way of reporting Trump is to do so in full and verbatim, and then everyone can see what a dishonest, crooked, moron he is, and draw their own conclusions. e.g. He should be in a padded room, or jail cell, not the Oval Office.
Nobody needs to do anything underhand to make Trump look bad, just let people listen to him for 60 seconds or so.
A German family has lived in the same place for 3,000 years
Scientists have discovered that the Huchthausen family from the village of Förste (Lower Saxony) has lived there continuously for around three millennia, Bild reports.
DNA analysis showed that the ancestors of Manfred Huchthausen lived just two kilometers away — in the Lichtenstein Cave, where archaeologists found human remains buried around 1000 BC, along with bronze jewelry, animal bones, and traces of funeral pyres.
Researchers believe these ancient inhabitants of the Harz region traded salt — the “white gold” of the Bronze Age.
The local museum director noted that they looked almost identical to their modern descendants.
*What did happen to him ? He was occasionally entertaining.
Pah, 3000 years, there’s the chap in who lives Cheddar gorge who is a direct descendant of “Cheddar Man” who was found from over 9,000 years ago.
As discussed some time ago, we are all descendants of everyone alive 9000 years ago [who has any living descenants]. And ‘direct’ has no meaning in this context.
[Slight qualification]
But yes, what does 'direct' descendant mean? What's an indirect descendant?
IANAE but to me an indirect descendent would would be relatives with an identifiable common ancestor. So while, for example, Charles III is a direct descendent of Alfred the Great (not a provable matter I suppose, but there it is in the family tree!) but is an indirect descendent of Princess Margaret or George VI's brother Edward VIII.
Once you get back a bit this seems to get hard. I hesitate to suggest that, for example, Charles in an indirect descendent of Alfred's brother Ethelbald because I bet he's a direct one and that someone can tell me so.
Charles Moore once suggested in that journal of record the Spectator that HMQEII was a direct descendent of Mohammed, through, IIRC, King Pedro the Cruel. I do hope that is correct.
Charles is not a descendant of Princess Margaret at all. And Edward VIII had no descendants at all as far as we know, so Charles is certainly not Edward's descendant, direct or otherwise*.
(*Let's not start any scurrilous rumours involving the Queen Mother and Edward.)
KCIII *is* a collateral descendant of KEVIII. Who was brother of his granddad. But not, so far as we know, as you say, a direct descendant.
If the BBC ceased to exist next week, I don't honestly think we would miss it much now.
Perhaps feel nostalgic for what it was, but miss what it has been reduced to? I can't see it.
Ironically I think the younger you are the less you would even notice it wasn't there.
On a weekend where Scotland had a huge game against the All Blacks, Liverpool (reigning champions) vs Man City (best side of the last decade), a Grand Prix, and countless other great sporting events the BBC showed the dead rubber of Eng vs Aussie in a sport so obscure it’s limited to a few towns in Northern England and some bits of Australia.
Nothing more encapsulates the death of the BBC. Streaming, pay per view whatever, the viewer can choose what content he or she watches and pays for it. The BBC licence fee is indefensible in the modern age. I don’t pay Ford when I buy a Toyota. I don’t pay Waitrose when I shop in Lidl.
The BBC is infected with unbiased bias. It# inhabited by right on types who have swallowed whole that men can be women, that Gaza is all the fault of Israel, that Trump is evil. I think many BBC employees will be like some on here tonight defending the Trump editing. I men FFS.
A new tactic to stop the boats? Hand them a big bill as soon as they arrive.
There must be a climate angle. Disposable boats with diesel engines? Tut tut.
Last I heard the beached inflatables were sold at auction, exported, reused. Probably one of the UK.govs most successful recycling projects.
During the campaigns against slavery, it was rapidly noticed that captured slave ships were being bought by front men for slavers at the auctions.
So the Royal Navy started burning them. And paying the value of them in prize money, out of the government budget, to the sailors who captured them.
It is of interest that this kind of rapid thinking and action took place in the age of the quill pen.
Ever read an account of how many civil servants the Board of Admiralty employed? I can't recall offhand, but it was something like two dozen in the London HQ, incoluding perhaps the doorkeeper and the cleaners.
There was also the Navy Board, to provide the ships, biscuits, rum, etc., but I doubt it was much bigger.
The BBC story is bringing all the derangement syndromes together into one singularity of insanity in defence of the indefensible.
I don't believe the Panorama edit is defensible, but the extrapolation that the BBC splice makes Trump innocent of his part on January 7th is even more absurd.
If the BBC ceased to exist next week, I don't honestly think we would miss it much now.
Perhaps feel nostalgic for what it was, but miss what it has been reduced to? I can't see it.
Ironically I think the younger you are the less you would even notice it wasn't there.
On a weekend where Scotland had a huge game against the All Blacks, Liverpool (reigning champions) vs Man City (best side of the last decade), a Grand Prix, and countless other great sporting events the BBC showed the dead rubber of Eng vs Aussie in a sport so obscure it’s limited to a few towns in Northern England and some bits of Australia.
Nothing more encapsulates the death of the BBC. Streaming, pay per view whatever, the viewer can choose what content he or she watches and pays for it. The BBC licence fee is indefensible in the modern age. I don’t pay Ford when I buy a Toyota. I don’t pay Waitrose when I shop in Lidl.
The BBC is infected with unbiased bias. It# inhabited by right on types who have swallowed whole that men can be women, that Gaza is all the fault of Israel, that Trump is evil. I think many BBC employees will be like some on here tonight defending the Trump editing. I men FFS.
We've come a long way from
"I counted them all out. And counted them all back."
Maybe Sky will make a bid for the BBC to add to ITV !!!!!
I said it before, sell the BBC to Paul Marshall for a pound.
Thought before that Reform would almost certainly do that if they get in. Not exactly hiding the fact they want to destroy it and selling it off to a right winger - not just getting rid of the Licence Fee - would essentially be salting the earth so no left wing government could 'bring it back'.
Reform could sell the BBC to Murdoch and have the license fee fund GB news?
Reports that Chuck Schumer is going to cave without ANY concessions over the shutdown.
This is a massive, massive win for MAGA Mike and Trump.
The DNC deserve to die in a ditch.
I suspect a scenario where the Republicans end up destroying Medicare might prove a very very Pyrrhic victory at the midterms. Meanwhile, a scenario where everything is trashed by political bickering risks damaging both sides.
By far the biggest issue with the press misreporting Trump is the sanewashing, which essentially all the media in the UK does. The best way of reporting Trump is to do so in full and verbatim, and then everyone can see what a dishonest, crooked, moron he is, and draw their own conclusions. e.g. He should be in a padded room, or jail cell, not the Oval Office.
Nobody needs to do anything underhand to make Trump look bad, just let people listen to him for 60 seconds or so.
Problem being Trump's mental decline and obvious health issues are getting no coverage on mainstream US media. They have to frame what he says very carefully just to block out his failings. You don't get that 60 seconds.
A new tactic to stop the boats? Hand them a big bill as soon as they arrive.
There must be a climate angle. Disposable boats with diesel engines? Tut tut.
Last I heard the beached inflatables were sold at auction, exported, reused. Probably one of the UK.govs most successful recycling projects.
During the campaigns against slavery, it was rapidly noticed that captured slave ships were being bought by front men for slavers at the auctions.
So the Royal Navy started burning them. And paying the value of them in prize money, out of the government budget, to the sailors who captured them.
It is of interest that this kind of rapid thinking and action took place in the age of the quill pen.
Ever read an account of how many civil servants the Board of Admiralty employed? I can't recall offhand, but it was something like two dozen in the London HQ, incoluding perhaps the doorkeeper and the cleaners.
There was also the Navy Board, to provide the ships, biscuits, rum, etc., but I doubt it was much bigger.
The two dozen must have been working 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, stealing non-stop.
"Less sympathetically viewed was the discovery that around a dozen snapped bolt heads in various parts of the ship had been simply glued back on instead of being replaced."
By far the biggest issue with the press misreporting Trump is the sanewashing, which essentially all the media in the UK does. The best way of reporting Trump is to do so in full and verbatim, and then everyone can see what a dishonest, crooked, moron he is, and draw their own conclusions. e.g. He should be in a padded room, or jail cell, not the Oval Office.
Nobody needs to do anything underhand to make Trump look bad, just let people listen to him for 60 seconds or so.
Problem being Trump's mental decline and obvious health issues are getting no coverage on mainstream US media. They have to frame what he says very carefully just to block out his failings. You don't get that 60 seconds.
Worse than anything the BBC did. Week after week.
All the more reason for the BBC not to resort to smoke & mirrors.
If the BBC ceased to exist next week, I don't honestly think we would miss it much now.
Perhaps feel nostalgic for what it was, but miss what it has been reduced to? I can't see it.
Ironically I think the younger you are the less you would even notice it wasn't there.
On a weekend where Scotland had a huge game against the All Blacks, Liverpool (reigning champions) vs Man City (best side of the last decade), a Grand Prix, and countless other great sporting events the BBC showed the dead rubber of Eng vs Aussie in a sport so obscure it’s limited to a few towns in Northern England and some bits of Australia.
Nothing more encapsulates the death of the BBC. Streaming, pay per view whatever, the viewer can choose what content he or she watches and pays for it. The BBC licence fee is indefensible in the modern age. I don’t pay Ford when I buy a Toyota. I don’t pay Waitrose when I shop in Lidl.
The BBC is infected with unbiased bias. It# inhabited by right on types who have swallowed whole that men can be women, that Gaza is all the fault of Israel, that Trump is evil. I think many BBC employees will be like some on here tonight defending the Trump editing. I men FFS.
The people running BBC Sport are morons. They bought the rights for Bellator, a second tier MMA promtion (because MMA is popular with male yute), but nobody watches that in the UK when UFC is all non-PPV on TNT Sports, they then hid it away on iPlayer and the promotion got bought out leaving the BBC hanging with rights for something that doesn't exist anymore.
So what did they do next, they have signed a deal to show boxing with Boxxer promotion. The promotion for boxers who don't have a deal with Eddie Hern or Queensbery. And of course they signed this deal not realising that the 2-3 genuine popular talented boxers on that promotion, their contracts were up for renewal a few months after they signed the deal and they have all left. So the BBC have been left paying to televise boxing shows that are basically total non-events. And add complication into the mix, Riyadh Season are the main sponsor, which open a load of ethnical issues for the BBC.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
90% of boomers never went to university. The tweeter will also get the triple lock as it stands when they retire
I wouldn't bet on the triple lock still being in place by the time that Tweeter retires.
By far the biggest issue with the press misreporting Trump is the sanewashing, which essentially all the media in the UK does. The best way of reporting Trump is to do so in full and verbatim, and then everyone can see what a dishonest, crooked, moron he is, and draw their own conclusions. e.g. He should be in a padded room, or jail cell, not the Oval Office.
Nobody needs to do anything underhand to make Trump look bad, just let people listen to him for 60 seconds or so.
Problem being Trump's mental decline and obvious health issues are getting no coverage on mainstream US media. They have to frame what he says very carefully just to block out his failings. You don't get that 60 seconds.
Worse than anything the BBC did. Week after week.
The funny thing is that they did the same for Biden.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
90% of boomers never went to university. The tweeter will also get the triple lock as it stands when they retire
I wouldn't bet on the triple lock still being in place by the time that Tweeter retires.
Reports that Chuck Schumer is going to cave without ANY concessions over the shutdown.
This is a massive, massive win for MAGA Mike and Trump.
The DNC deserve to die in a ditch.
There is a reason that the DNC "elite" are despised in the wider party. The parade of geriatrics who never quite seem to oppose Trump, even when it's their designated turn.....
A new tactic to stop the boats? Hand them a big bill as soon as they arrive.
There must be a climate angle. Disposable boats with diesel engines? Tut tut.
Last I heard the beached inflatables were sold at auction, exported, reused. Probably one of the UK.govs most successful recycling projects.
( I have zero proof but it sounds possible )
After 9th September 2001 airlines banned penknives etc. At a market soon after there was a stall with hundreds of what looked like exactly the kind of thing confiscated at the airports. Can’t imagine how they got there…
By far the biggest issue with the press misreporting Trump is the sanewashing, which essentially all the media in the UK does. The best way of reporting Trump is to do so in full and verbatim, and then everyone can see what a dishonest, crooked, moron he is, and draw their own conclusions. e.g. He should be in a padded room, or jail cell, not the Oval Office.
Nobody needs to do anything underhand to make Trump look bad, just let people listen to him for 60 seconds or so.
Problem being Trump's mental decline and obvious health issues are getting no coverage on mainstream US media. They have to frame what he says very carefully just to block out his failings. You don't get that 60 seconds.
Worse than anything the BBC did. Week after week.
I follow what Trump is doing far too much for my good health, but it's no joke to say that if I read some outrageous story about his latest public statements and then go and find a transcript or recording, what he actually said and how he delivered it is often worse than what was reported, particularly if it was filtered by the editotial practices of a major broadcaster or newspaper. Most of the press is clearly afraid to properly report Trump and his administration. Trump's threats to sue and withdraw licences, as well as a fear of loss of advertising and boycotts, has plainly had a chilling effect on truthful reporting. Often the most accurate reporting comes from blogs, social media, minor news sites and so on, which is an inversion of what generally happens. Those with most to lose bite their tongues.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
Only a very few of us boomers got to go to uni, so we didn't get free uni tuition.
Hang on, didn't you get subsistence grants from your county/Scottish Education Dept, if you did get in [edit]? Admittedly means tested according to parental income,m and supplemented accordingly by the Bank of Mum and Dad. But tuition fees were paid.
Oh, yes, AIUI everything was paid for. But since so few of us were able to go to uni at all, it wasn't a benefit that many of us received.
I don't dispute at all that we've ended up with terrible generational unfairness, but that specific example isn't genuine.
It is genuine.
For those who went to uni they got a premium career, by being in the elite small percentage without it, without having any fees (indeed likely grtting grants)
For those who didn't, they did not need to. Most careers did not demand a degree.
Whereas now degrees are needed to get into careers that did not demand them in the past, with fees for the privilege.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
90% of boomers never went to university. The tweeter will also get the triple lock as it stands when they retire
I wouldn't bet on the triple lock still being in place by the time that Tweeter retires.
I'm not sure I would bet on it being around, in anything like its current form, in 5 years time. It's simply unsustainable.
A German family has lived in the same place for 3,000 years
Scientists have discovered that the Huchthausen family from the village of Förste (Lower Saxony) has lived there continuously for around three millennia, Bild reports.
DNA analysis showed that the ancestors of Manfred Huchthausen lived just two kilometers away — in the Lichtenstein Cave, where archaeologists found human remains buried around 1000 BC, along with bronze jewelry, animal bones, and traces of funeral pyres.
Researchers believe these ancient inhabitants of the Harz region traded salt — the “white gold” of the Bronze Age.
The local museum director noted that they looked almost identical to their modern descendants.
*What did happen to him ? He was occasionally entertaining.
Pah, 3000 years, there’s the chap in who lives Cheddar gorge who is a direct descendant of “Cheddar Man” who was found from over 9,000 years ago.
As discussed some time ago, we are all descendants of everyone alive 9000 years ago [who has any living descenants]. And ‘direct’ has no meaning in this context.
[Slight qualification]
But yes, what does 'direct' descendant mean? What's an indirect descendant?
IANAE but to me an indirect descendent would would be relatives with an identifiable common ancestor. So while, for example, Charles III is a direct descendent of Alfred the Great (not a provable matter I suppose, but there it is in the family tree!) but is an indirect descendent of Princess Margaret or George VI's brother Edward VIII.
Once you get back a bit this seems to get hard. I hesitate to suggest that, for example, Charles in an indirect descendent of Alfred's brother Ethelbald because I bet he's a direct one and that someone can tell me so.
Charles Moore once suggested in that journal of record the Spectator that HMQEII was a direct descendent of Mohammed, through, IIRC, King Pedro the Cruel. I do hope that is correct. It would give a solid start to a renewed but ecumenical caliphate under KCIII.
The theory is that Alfonso the Brave of Castile (d. 1109) was married a woman called Zaida who took the name Isabel after she converted to Christianity and who was said to be descended from the Abassids and thence from the Prophet. However this is not a provable descent. Nevertheless, although direct descent beyond Zaida can not be proved, the King is related to the line of Caliphs, but then virtually all the Royal Houses of Europe are also descended in like manner.
The Kings of Jordan and Morocco are both said to be directly descended from the Prophet and more provably than the conjectural line for King Charles III. The Prophet died in 632 AD.
However, the King can trace his line back a century further than that, to Cerdic, the founder of the House of Wessex, who died in 534 AD. The line came two ways: one via Matilda of Flanders, wife of William the Conqueror whose mother was descended from Alfred the Great, and the second via Matilda of Scotland, wife of Henry I, who was the great grand daughter of Edmund Ironside. Cerdic himself may in turn have been descended from British nobility, given that the names of several of his family were more Romano-British than Saxon, but the family tree stops with Cerdic himself, and is why the Saxon royal house were called Cerdicingas.
The BBC story is bringing all the derangement syndromes together into one singularity of insanity in defence of the indefensible.
I don't believe the Panorama edit is defensible, but the extrapolation that the BBC splice makes Trump innocent of his part on January 7th is even more absurd.
Who is arguing that! That’s a huge straw man.
There are loads of pro-Trumpers on YouTube making exactly the extrapolation I have suggested.
A new tactic to stop the boats? Hand them a big bill as soon as they arrive.
There must be a climate angle. Disposable boats with diesel engines? Tut tut.
Last I heard the beached inflatables were sold at auction, exported, reused. Probably one of the UK.govs most successful recycling projects.
During the campaigns against slavery, it was rapidly noticed that captured slave ships were being bought by front men for slavers at the auctions.
So the Royal Navy started burning them. And paying the value of them in prize money, out of the government budget, to the sailors who captured them.
It is of interest that this kind of rapid thinking and action took place in the age of the quill pen.
Ever read an account of how many civil servants the Board of Admiralty employed? I can't recall offhand, but it was something like two dozen in the London HQ, incoluding perhaps the doorkeeper and the cleaners.
There was also the Navy Board, to provide the ships, biscuits, rum, etc., but I doubt it was much bigger.
The two dozen must have been working 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, stealing non-stop.
"Less sympathetically viewed was the discovery that around a dozen snapped bolt heads in various parts of the ship had been simply glued back on instead of being replaced."
Reminds me of one of the lesser known Parkinson's laws which created a formula to predict that the number of Admirals would eventually exceed the number of ships in the Royal Navy. I think this came to pass around 2008.
Rachel Reeves is poised to increase the tax rate on earnings from shares in her Nov 26 Budget, The Telegraph understands. The Chancellor is expected to put up the rate of dividend tax in a move that will hit investors but could raise up to £2bn.
The BBC story is bringing all the derangement syndromes together into one singularity of insanity in defence of the indefensible.
I don't believe the Panorama edit is defensible, but the extrapolation that the BBC splice makes Trump innocent of his part on January 7th is even more absurd.
Who is arguing that! That’s a huge straw man.
There are loads of pro-Trumpers on YouTube making exactly the extrapolation I have suggested.
They are being absurd and stupid. Obviously.
However...
The BBC have just achieved a version of what Alison Rose did vs Nigel Farage.
They lost a truth telling contest against Donald Fucking Trump. Twats
If the BBC ceased to exist next week, I don't honestly think we would miss it much now.
Perhaps feel nostalgic for what it was, but miss what it has been reduced to? I can't see it.
Ironically I think the younger you are the less you would even notice it wasn't there.
On a weekend where Scotland had a huge game against the All Blacks, Liverpool (reigning champions) vs Man City (best side of the last decade), a Grand Prix, and countless other great sporting events the BBC showed the dead rubber of Eng vs Aussie in a sport so obscure it’s limited to a few towns in Northern England and some bits of Australia.
Nothing more encapsulates the death of the BBC. Streaming, pay per view whatever, the viewer can choose what content he or she watches and pays for it. The BBC licence fee is indefensible in the modern age. I don’t pay Ford when I buy a Toyota. I don’t pay Waitrose when I shop in Lidl.
The BBC is infected with unbiased bias. It# inhabited by right on types who have swallowed whole that men can be women, that Gaza is all the fault of Israel, that Trump is evil. I think many BBC employees will be like some on here tonight defending the Trump editing. I men FFS.
We've come a long way from
"I counted them all out. And counted them all back."
And Newsnight's "If we believe the British..." (same conflict).
If the BBC ceased to exist next week, I don't honestly think we would miss it much now.
Perhaps feel nostalgic for what it was, but miss what it has been reduced to? I can't see it.
Ironically I think the younger you are the less you would even notice it wasn't there.
On a weekend where Scotland had a huge game against the All Blacks, Liverpool (reigning champions) vs Man City (best side of the last decade), a Grand Prix, and countless other great sporting events the BBC showed the dead rubber of Eng vs Aussie in a sport so obscure it’s limited to a few towns in Northern England and some bits of Australia.
Nothing more encapsulates the death of the BBC. Streaming, pay per view whatever, the viewer can choose what content he or she watches and pays for it. The BBC licence fee is indefensible in the modern age. I don’t pay Ford when I buy a Toyota. I don’t pay Waitrose when I shop in Lidl.
The BBC is infected with unbiased bias. It# inhabited by right on types who have swallowed whole that men can be women, that Gaza is all the fault of Israel, that Trump is evil. I think many BBC employees will be like some on here tonight defending the Trump editing. I men FFS.
Right on types? Tim Davie, Robbie Gibb, Laura Kuennsberg, Fiona Bruce, Chris Mason, Nick Robinson, Sarah Montague...
Rachel Reeves is poised to increase the tax rate on earnings from shares in her Nov 26 Budget, The Telegraph understands. The Chancellor is expected to put up the rate of dividend tax in a move that will hit investors but could raise up to £2bn.
A new tactic to stop the boats? Hand them a big bill as soon as they arrive.
There must be a climate angle. Disposable boats with diesel engines? Tut tut.
Great should organise some sailing ships.
Guaranteed asylum for anyone who can swim the channel.
Silly idea.
Guaranteed job.
"Congratulations - you've just enlisted yourself in the Royal Navy. For 20 years. The good news - we abolished the lash. The bad news - we abolished the run. The worse news.... "
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
Only a very few of us boomers got to go to uni, so we didn't get free uni tuition.
Hang on, didn't you get subsistence grants from your county/Scottish Education Dept, if you did get in [edit]? Admittedly means tested according to parental income,m and supplemented accordingly by the Bank of Mum and Dad. But tuition fees were paid.
Oh, yes, AIUI everything was paid for. But since so few of us were able to go to uni at all, it wasn't a benefit that many of us received.
I don't dispute at all that we've ended up with terrible generational unfairness, but that specific example isn't genuine.
It is genuine.
For those who went to uni they got a premium career, by being in the elite small percentage without it, without having any fees (indeed likely grtting grants)
For those who didn't, they did not need to. Most careers did not demand a degree.
Whereas now degrees are needed to get into careers that did not demand them in the past, with fees for the privilege.
Yes, that's true to an extent. But when the demand for a degree came in, which was when I myself was hardly even in mid-career, it put us at a significant disadvantage.
Not that I'm crying about it or was crying then; it was just a fact of life.
The BBC story is bringing all the derangement syndromes together into one singularity of insanity in defence of the indefensible.
I don't believe the Panorama edit is defensible, but the extrapolation that the BBC splice makes Trump innocent of his part on January 7th is even more absurd.
Who is arguing that! That’s a huge straw man.
There are loads of pro-Trumpers on YouTube making exactly the extrapolation I have suggested.
They are being absurd and stupid. Obviously.
However...
The BBC have just achieved a version of what Alison Rose did vs Nigel Farage.
They lost a truth telling contest against Donald Fucking Trump. Twats
Rachel Reeves is poised to increase the tax rate on earnings from shares in her Nov 26 Budget, The Telegraph understands. The Chancellor is expected to put up the rate of dividend tax in a move that will hit investors but could raise up to £2bn.
I thought Reeves wanted more people investing in stocks?
She meant put investors in the stocks.
Yes, the government want to cut down the use of cash ISAs, perhaps by lowering the annual deposit limit, and encourage people to instead use share ISAs, by increasing the tax paid on the returns. Someone explain how this is meant to work, I'm clearly too thick to understand what the whiz kids in the Treasury are up to.
By far the biggest issue with the press misreporting Trump is the sanewashing, which essentially all the media in the UK does. The best way of reporting Trump is to do so in full and verbatim, and then everyone can see what a dishonest, crooked, moron he is, and draw their own conclusions. e.g. He should be in a padded room, or jail cell, not the Oval Office.
Nobody needs to do anything underhand to make Trump look bad, just let people listen to him for 60 seconds or so.
Problem being Trump's mental decline and obvious health issues are getting no coverage on mainstream US media. They have to frame what he says very carefully just to block out his failings. You don't get that 60 seconds.
Worse than anything the BBC did. Week after week.
All the more reason for the BBC not to resort to smoke & mirrors.
A curious titbit; it wasn't BBC smoke or mirrors- not directly, anyway.
October Films, the independent production company that made the Trump Panorama, is said to be working on a film about Nigel Farage.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
Only a very few of us boomers got to go to uni, so we didn't get free uni tuition.
Hang on, didn't you get subsistence grants from your county/Scottish Education Dept, if you did get in [edit]? Admittedly means tested according to parental income,m and supplemented accordingly by the Bank of Mum and Dad. But tuition fees were paid.
Oh, yes, AIUI everything was paid for. But since so few of us were able to go to uni at all, it wasn't a benefit that many of us received.
I don't dispute at all that we've ended up with terrible generational unfairness, but that specific example isn't genuine.
Not everything was paid for by the state, of course - and indeed I recently discovered in my deceased mother's papers the cancelled cheque she'd sent me for my first trance of the parental share of subsistence in 1976.
Moreover of course that a lot of people went to polys or FE, or apprenticeships ... but still.
IRC some LEAs were remarkably slow at processing mandatory grants which covered tuition and subsistence. Polytechnic students might find that their chosen course wasn't eligible for a discretionary award from their LEA,. It wasn't an ideal situation.
If the BBC ceased to exist next week, I don't honestly think we would miss it much now.
Perhaps feel nostalgic for what it was, but miss what it has been reduced to? I can't see it.
Ironically I think the younger you are the less you would even notice it wasn't there.
On a weekend where Scotland had a huge game against the All Blacks, Liverpool (reigning champions) vs Man City (best side of the last decade), a Grand Prix, and countless other great sporting events the BBC showed the dead rubber of Eng vs Aussie in a sport so obscure it’s limited to a few towns in Northern England and some bits of Australia.
Nothing more encapsulates the death of the BBC. Streaming, pay per view whatever, the viewer can choose what content he or she watches and pays for it. The BBC licence fee is indefensible in the modern age. I don’t pay Ford when I buy a Toyota. I don’t pay Waitrose when I shop in Lidl.
The BBC is infected with unbiased bias. It# inhabited by right on types who have swallowed whole that men can be women, that Gaza is all the fault of Israel, that Trump is evil. I think many BBC employees will be like some on here tonight defending the Trump editing. I men FFS.
Right on types? Tim Davie, Robbie Gibb, Laura Kuennsberg, Fiona Bruce, Chris Mason, Nick Robinson, Sarah Montague...
Seriuosly! Laura Kuensberg, Fiona Bruce, Nick Robinson? I think you watch people trying to be unbiased by giving Labour politicians a hard time and decide they must be Tories.
Rachel Reeves is poised to increase the tax rate on earnings from shares in her Nov 26 Budget, The Telegraph understands. The Chancellor is expected to put up the rate of dividend tax in a move that will hit investors but could raise up to £2bn.
I thought Reeves wanted more people investing in stocks?
She meant put investors in the stocks.
Yes, the government want to cut down the use of cash ISAs, perhaps by lowering the annual deposit limit, and encourage people to instead use share ISAs, by increasing the tax paid on the returns. Someone explain how this is meant to work, I'm clearly too thick to understand what the whiz kids in the Treasury are up to.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
That seems an out of time, unaware comment.
The boomers also paid for the national infra where investment stopped or slowed in the 1980s - reservoirs, roads, motorways, change to natural gas, and for all the investment in Council houses when they were still being built, and paid off the war debt whilst living less affluent lifestyles than now, and so on.
Years and years ago, the wife of a friend asked me how she could be well-informed, (She wanted to be a better citizen.)
I thought a bit and told her not to watch TV news. Instead read the best newspaper you can find -- and a source that criticizes that newspaper. Back then you could have done fairly well, by reading the NYT, and National Review.
The reasoning behind my suggestions is simple: The data rate is extremely low in TV news, compared to print news. As I recall, someone once noted that the 20 minutes or so of news on national TV news programs at the time would fit into about half of a front page of a typical issue of the NYT.
And that means that broadcasters have to select which stories to cover, and which to leave out. Since few journalists are saints, those choices will, inevitably, be biased. By reading a critic, you can, to some extent, protect yourself from those biases.
(For the record: Back when I had a small site of my own, I saw enough problems with the BBC that I started referring to problems I saw as "routine bias".)
Rachel Reeves is poised to increase the tax rate on earnings from shares in her Nov 26 Budget, The Telegraph understands. The Chancellor is expected to put up the rate of dividend tax in a move that will hit investors but could raise up to £2bn.
I thought Reeves wanted more people investing in stocks?
She meant put investors in the stocks.
Yes, the government want to cut down the use of cash ISAs, perhaps by lowering the annual deposit limit, and encourage people to instead use share ISAs, by increasing the tax paid on the returns. Someone explain how this is meant to work, I'm clearly too thick to understand what the whiz kids in the Treasury are up to.
If it's in an ISA, isn't it tax-free anyway?
A good point. I was thinking more of the effect of raising more tax from dividends by upping the rates or cutting the allowances putting people off the idea altogether. The messaging is messy.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
That seems an out of time, unaware comment.
The boomers also paid for the national infra where investment stopped or slowed in the 1980s - reservoirs, roads, motorways, change to natural gas, and for all the investment in Council houses when they were still being built, and paid off the war debt whilst living less affluent lifestyles than now, and so on.
Early boomers, perhaps.
But if you are 70 now, you were born in 1955, so still in the ooo of the boom, midway between the immediate postwar peak and the 1964 one. Aged 30 in 1985, hitting your serious taxpaying years when taxes were falling and infrastructure spending fell away.
We used to point at laugh at early boomers who had forgotten that they didn't actually win the war. The march of time means that pensioners increasingly didn't live through the painful cleanup, either.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
Only a very few of us boomers got to go to uni, so we didn't get free uni tuition.
Hang on, didn't you get subsistence grants from your county/Scottish Education Dept, if you did get in [edit]? Admittedly means tested according to parental income,m and supplemented accordingly by the Bank of Mum and Dad. But tuition fees were paid.
Oh, yes, AIUI everything was paid for. But since so few of us were able to go to uni at all, it wasn't a benefit that many of us received.
I don't dispute at all that we've ended up with terrible generational unfairness, but that specific example isn't genuine.
It is genuine.
For those who went to uni they got a premium career, by being in the elite small percentage without it, without having any fees (indeed likely grtting grants)
For those who didn't, they did not need to. Most careers did not demand a degree.
Whereas now degrees are needed to get into careers that did not demand them in the past, with fees for the privilege.
Yes, that's true to an extent. But when the demand for a degree came in, which was when I myself was hardly even in mid-career, it put us at a significant disadvantage.
Not that I'm crying about it or was crying then; it was just a fact of life.
The last boomers who went to University were in 1982. The number of full-time students was around 7% of the age group, or around 12-14% of the age group if we include all higher education. And that's after it had trebled between 1960 and 1980. Boomers were at University entrance age of 18 between 1964 and 1982.
As an attempt to evaluate an entire generation, it's the BS we expect from people making that argument.
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
That seems an out of time, unaware comment.
The boomers also paid for the national infra where investment stopped or slowed in the 1980s - reservoirs, roads, motorways, change to natural gas, and for all the investment in Council houses when they were still being built, and paid off the war debt whilst living less affluent lifestyles than now, and so on.
Early boomers, perhaps.
But if you are 70 now, you were born in 1955, so still in the ooo of the boom, midway between the immediate postwar peak and the 1964 one. Aged 30 in 1985, hitting your serious taxpaying years when taxes were falling and infrastructure spending fell away.
We used to point at laugh at early boomers who had forgotten that they didn't actually win the war. The march of time means that pensioners increasingly didn't live through the painful cleanup, either.
Boomers are 1946 to 1964 birth date.
So Early Boomers had their childhoods under rationing up to 1954.
I think making sweeping generalisations and claims about (most provocatively) "inter-generational theft" is unacceptable.
There's a debate, but not in the black and white terms in which it is sometimes framed.
If the BBC ceased to exist next week, I don't honestly think we would miss it much now.
Perhaps feel nostalgic for what it was, but miss what it has been reduced to? I can't see it.
Ironically I think the younger you are the less you would even notice it wasn't there.
On a weekend where Scotland had a huge game against the All Blacks, Liverpool (reigning champions) vs Man City (best side of the last decade), a Grand Prix, and countless other great sporting events the BBC showed the dead rubber of Eng vs Aussie in a sport so obscure it’s limited to a few towns in Northern England and some bits of Australia.
Nothing more encapsulates the death of the BBC. Streaming, pay per view whatever, the viewer can choose what content he or she watches and pays for it. The BBC licence fee is indefensible in the modern age. I don’t pay Ford when I buy a Toyota. I don’t pay Waitrose when I shop in Lidl.
The BBC is infected with unbiased bias. It# inhabited by right on types who have swallowed whole that men can be women, that Gaza is all the fault of Israel, that Trump is evil. I think many BBC employees will be like some on here tonight defending the Trump editing. I men FFS.
Right on types? Tim Davie, Robbie Gibb, Laura Kuennsberg, Fiona Bruce, Chris Mason, Nick Robinson, Sarah Montague...
Seriuosly! Laura Kuensberg, Fiona Bruce, Nick Robinson? I think you watch people trying to be unbiased by giving Labour politicians a hard time and decide they must be Tories.
Ignore that the critique is by O'Brexit. Just watch Kuennsberg's response to Stephen Flynn calling Johnson a liar. "That is quite a charge".
A German family has lived in the same place for 3,000 years
Scientists have discovered that the Huchthausen family from the village of Förste (Lower Saxony) has lived there continuously for around three millennia, Bild reports.
DNA analysis showed that the ancestors of Manfred Huchthausen lived just two kilometers away — in the Lichtenstein Cave, where archaeologists found human remains buried around 1000 BC, along with bronze jewelry, animal bones, and traces of funeral pyres.
Researchers believe these ancient inhabitants of the Harz region traded salt — the “white gold” of the Bronze Age.
The local museum director noted that they looked almost identical to their modern descendants.
*What did happen to him ? He was occasionally entertaining.
Pah, 3000 years, there’s the chap in who lives Cheddar gorge who is a direct descendant of “Cheddar Man” who was found from over 9,000 years ago.
As discussed some time ago, we are all descendants of everyone alive 9000 years ago [who has any living descenants]. And ‘direct’ has no meaning in this context.
[Slight qualification]
But yes, what does 'direct' descendant mean? What's an indirect descendant?
IANAE but to me an indirect descendent would would be relatives with an identifiable common ancestor. So while, for example, Charles III is a direct descendent of Alfred the Great (not a provable matter I suppose, but there it is in the family tree!) but is an indirect descendent of Princess Margaret or George VI's brother Edward VIII.
Once you get back a bit this seems to get hard. I hesitate to suggest that, for example, Charles in an indirect descendent of Alfred's brother Ethelbald because I bet he's a direct one and that someone can tell me so.
Charles Moore once suggested in that journal of record the Spectator that HMQEII was a direct descendent of Mohammed, through, IIRC, King Pedro the Cruel. I do hope that is correct.
Charles is not a descendant of Princess Margaret at all. And Edward VIII had no descendants at all as far as we know, so Charles is certainly not Edward's descendant, direct or otherwise*.
(*Let's not start any scurrilous rumours involving the Queen Mother and Edward.)
KCIII *is* a collateral descendant of KEVIII. Who was brother of his granddad. But not, so far as we know, as you say, a direct descendant.
I really like the sound of Kev III.
Many argue his successes were really all down to his consort Shaz IV.
Rachel Reeves is poised to increase the tax rate on earnings from shares in her Nov 26 Budget, The Telegraph understands. The Chancellor is expected to put up the rate of dividend tax in a move that will hit investors but could raise up to £2bn.
Maybe Sky will make a bid for the BBC to add to ITV !!!!!
I said it before, sell the BBC to Paul Marshall for a pound.
Thought before that Reform would almost certainly do that if they get in. Not exactly hiding the fact they want to destroy it and selling it off to a right winger - not just getting rid of the Licence Fee - would essentially be salting the earth so no left wing government could 'bring it back'.
Reform could sell the BBC to Murdoch and have the license fee fund GB news?
So after paying for my uni tuition that the boomers got for free, I now have to pay tax on my pension contributions when the boomers didn't, just to make sure that the boomers get an even more generous state pension with their final salary pensions, of which I will get neither. https://x.com/ebullienteddie/status/1987057199714037978
90% of boomers never went to university. The tweeter will also get the triple lock as it stands when they retire
I wouldn't bet on the triple lock still being in place by the time that Tweeter retires.
It will unless a party wants to commit electoral suicide. At most it might be means tested
I did wonder if the former Mirror Editor forgot the story of torture in Iraq which led to his sacking.
A man who also was totally unaware of industrial scale phone hacking on his watch that made the NOTW look like part time amateaurs....the mind boggles.
Interesting that resigning head of news denies the BBC is biased.. they just don't get it. Corrupt.. biased... call it what you like. If you can't trust the BBC then something is terribly wrong. To call a disgraceful edit that had to be by design.. "a mistake" is not fooling anyone.
The BBC was forced to make 215 corrections in the last two years over the coverage by its BBC Arabic arm ( funded through our licence fee) of the Gaza conflict.
This is why it isn't really the Trump thing, although that will be all the focus.
The BBC is biased to the right if one is left of centre (me) and biased to the left if one is right of centre (the PB Tory massif).
Clearly one can offset those 215 pro Gazan corrections with the 215 or so times the BBC has relied on Eylon Levy and other assorted ghouls for "unbiased" commentary on the Gaza war.
Interesting that resigning head of news denies the BBC is biased.. they just don't get it. Corrupt.. biased... call it what you like. If you can't trust the BBC then something is terribly wrong. To call a disgraceful edit that had to be by design.. "a mistake" is not fooling anyone.
The BBC was forced to make 215 corrections in the last two years over the coverage by its BBC Arabic arm ( funded through our licence fee) of the Gaza conflict.
This is why it isn't really the Trump thing, although that will be all the focus.
The BBC is biased to the right if one is left of centre (me) and biased to the left if one is right of centre (the PB Tory massif).
Clearly one can offset those 215 pro Gazan corrections with the 215 or so times the BBC has relied on Eylon Levy and other assorted ghouls for "unbiased" commentary on the Gaza war.
Shouldn't the people who made and broadcasted the edit of Trump's speech get the sack along with the editors and reporters of the other misleading news items documented in Michael Prescott's report?
The impression given was clearly misleading, and it's right that the people responsible should be at least disciplined and perhaps sacked. Whether that extends to the Head of the BBC and/or the head of news is something I'm curious to know. If not, I'm not sure they should be resigning. I appreciate that there have been other issues, as discussed on the news tonight, but do they add up to systematic bias in any partiular direction, as opposed to the urge to make a good, simple story, even a misleading one? Maybe that's the issue, more than systematic bias (the BBC doesn't strike me as systematically left-wing or right-wing)? I'd be happy to see a news programme that summarised both sides of an issue more than we're used to.
Hopefully the moving of Davie can signal a new era of quality for the BBC. Much of the loss of distinctiveness under Birt's lieutenant, Tony Hall, continued under him, and he seems to have had little feel for programme-making. The BBC urgently needs to rediscover its purpose.
Comments
Of course I was musing this while eating a Hobnob and I really think they improve my posts no end. McVitie’s Hobnobs are golden-baked to perfection, to create the moreishly crunchy, oaty biscuit.
Sit down with a cuppa and post on PB while enjoying a Hobnob, with or without the BBC.
(other oat biscuits are available)
I was unimpressed by the overall BBC coverage of last year's GE, and thought it was too slow and clunky.
The recent furore over Gaza coverage might have been avoided with more care. Too few clips refer to restrictions imposed by Hamas or Palestine - compare the way in which BBC covered South Africa before Mandela became President. Perhaps too many experienced editors have retired early.
But why destroy a reputation by doctoring footage of Trump?
Nandy must be so pleased to see that her own behaviour over The Football Regulator appointment is suddenly moving off the headline pages.
Median age in UK is about 40, so the median voting age is probably what... 50?
Collateral descent is contrasted with lineal descent: those related directly by a line of descent such as the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. of an individual. Though both forms are consanguineal (blood relations), collaterals are neither ancestors nor descendants of a given person.[3] In legal terminology, 'Collateral descendant' refers to relatives descended from a sibling of an ancestor, and thus a niece, nephew, or cousin.[4]
Wiki is unambiguously clear is saying that this both does and does not constitute descent.
But there was clearly a student-led "Fill in the forms but make them as illegible as possible! That'll show 'em!" campaign going on.
Which, as I sat trying to type illegible handwriting into an early 90s PC at 4am on my overnight shift with the threat of being sacked if my key-depressions-per-hour or 'accuracy' fell below target - really made me sympathise with them.
(Trails are ads, though.)
An equally great problem was the appalling treatment of peoplke who had to move between private/company pension schemes. That was also entirely down to the commercial sector. I can't remember when that reform came in to ameliorate it, but it was huge. 1980?
I don't dispute at all that we've ended up with terrible generational unfairness, but that specific example isn't genuine.
Moreover of course that a lot of people went to polys or FE, or apprenticeships ... but still.
The Trump-Vance White House just banned prayer vigils outside a migrant detention center.
Yes — prayer. On the sidewalk.
https://x.com/chrisjollyhale/status/1987290358699409808
( I have zero proof but it sounds possible )
Nobody needs to do anything underhand to make Trump look bad, just let people listen to him for 60 seconds or so.
So the Royal Navy started burning them. And paying the value of them in prize money, out of the government budget, to the sailors who captured them.
It is of interest that this kind of rapid thinking and action took place in the age of the quill pen.
This is a massive, massive win for MAGA Mike and Trump.
The DNC deserve to die in a ditch.
Nothing more encapsulates the death of the BBC. Streaming, pay per view whatever, the viewer can choose what content he or she watches and pays for it. The BBC licence fee is indefensible in the modern age. I don’t pay Ford when I buy a Toyota. I don’t pay Waitrose when I shop in Lidl.
The BBC is infected with unbiased bias. It# inhabited by right on types who have swallowed whole that men can be women, that Gaza is all the fault of Israel, that Trump is evil. I think many BBC employees will be like some on here tonight defending the Trump editing. I men FFS.
There was also the Navy Board, to provide the ships, biscuits, rum, etc., but I doubt it was much bigger.
"I counted them all out. And counted them all back."
Worse than anything the BBC did. Week after week.
https://russiadock.blogspot.com/2015/10/trouble-in-paradise-1786-1813-beginning.html
Robber bolts, an' all kinds of fun.
Guess what, though - https://www.navylookout.com/storm-in-a-teacup-a-setback-for-the-royal-navys-newest-ship-hms-forth/
"Less sympathetically viewed was the discovery that around a dozen snapped bolt heads in various parts of the ship had been simply glued back on instead of being replaced."
So what did they do next, they have signed a deal to show boxing with Boxxer promotion. The promotion for boxers who don't have a deal with Eddie Hern or Queensbery. And of course they signed this deal not realising that the 2-3 genuine popular talented boxers on that promotion, their contracts were up for renewal a few months after they signed the deal and they have all left. So the BBC have been left paying to televise boxing shows that are basically total non-events. And add complication into the mix, Riyadh Season are the main sponsor, which open a load of ethnical issues for the BBC.
For those who went to uni they got a premium career, by being in the elite small percentage without it, without having any fees (indeed likely grtting grants)
For those who didn't, they did not need to. Most careers did not demand a degree.
Whereas now degrees are needed to get into careers that did not demand them in the past, with fees for the privilege.
The Kings of Jordan and Morocco are both said to be directly descended from the Prophet and more provably than the conjectural line for King Charles III. The Prophet died in 632 AD.
However, the King can trace his line back a century further than that, to Cerdic, the founder of the House of Wessex, who died in 534 AD. The line came two ways: one via Matilda of Flanders, wife of William the Conqueror whose mother was descended from Alfred the Great, and the second via Matilda of Scotland, wife of Henry I, who was the great grand daughter of Edmund Ironside. Cerdic himself may in turn have been descended from British nobility, given that the names of several of his family were more Romano-British than Saxon, but the family tree stops with Cerdic himself, and is why the Saxon royal house were called Cerdicingas.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/11/09/rachel-reeves-increase-dividend-tax-budget/
I thought Reeves wanted more people investing in stocks?
However...
The BBC have just achieved a version of what Alison Rose did vs Nigel Farage.
They lost a truth telling contest against Donald Fucking Trump. Twats
Guaranteed job.
"Congratulations - you've just enlisted yourself in the Royal Navy. For 20 years. The good news - we abolished the lash. The bad news - we abolished the run. The worse news.... "
Not that I'm crying about it or was crying then; it was just a fact of life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1w85qMqIjs&t=6s
Trump making a huge issue of it plays into his hands and the international media
What on earth were those responsible thinking ?
Time for everyone involved to be given their P45 for shaming the corporation
Pay the man $100,000,000.
That's not why Davie and the head of news have gone.
October Films, the independent production company that made the Trump Panorama, is said to be working on a film about Nigel Farage.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/09/bbc-attack-trump-telegraph-tories-tim-davie-resignation?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Maybe part of the problem is that so much stuff is subcontracted that nobody knows who is actually responsible for what any more.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1975-01-23/debates/8c2da06c-daab-487a-b74b-b2cac72c53cc/StudentAwards
"No more petrol in the tank"
The boomers also paid for the national infra where investment stopped or slowed in the 1980s - reservoirs, roads, motorways, change to natural gas, and for all the investment in Council houses when they were still being built, and paid off the war debt whilst living less affluent lifestyles than now, and so on.
The Gaza coverage has been far more egregious in my opinion.
Years and years ago, the wife of a friend asked me how she could be well-informed, (She wanted to be a better citizen.)
I thought a bit and told her not to watch TV news. Instead read the best newspaper you can find -- and a source that criticizes that newspaper. Back then you could have done fairly well, by reading the NYT, and National Review.
The reasoning behind my suggestions is simple: The data rate is extremely low in TV news, compared to print news. As I recall, someone once noted that the 20 minutes or so of news on national TV news programs at the time would fit into about half of a front page of a typical issue of the NYT.
And that means that broadcasters have to select which stories to cover, and which to leave out. Since few journalists are saints, those choices will, inevitably, be biased. By reading a critic, you can, to some extent, protect yourself from those biases.
(For the record: Back when I had a small site of my own, I saw enough problems with the BBC that I started referring to problems I saw as "routine bias".)
But if you are 70 now, you were born in 1955, so still in the ooo of the boom, midway between the immediate postwar peak and the 1964 one. Aged 30 in 1985, hitting your serious taxpaying years when taxes were falling and infrastructure spending fell away.
We used to point at laugh at early boomers who had forgotten that they didn't actually win the war. The march of time means that pensioners increasingly didn't live through the painful cleanup, either.
As an attempt to evaluate an entire generation, it's the BS we expect from people making that argument.
Here are the numbers from the Parliamentary Report linked below:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04252/SN04252.pdf
So Early Boomers had their childhoods under rationing up to 1954.
I think making sweeping generalisations and claims about (most provocatively) "inter-generational theft" is unacceptable.
There's a debate, but not in the black and white terms in which it is sometimes framed.
(I'm Gen X.)
"Scholz could be caught with his trousers down as Taurus missiles might not work"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqFZwSJUIOE
https://x.com/piersmorgan/status/1987634610852053278
I did wonder if the former Mirror Editor forgot the story of torture in Iraq which led to his sacking.
Clearly one can offset those 215 pro Gazan corrections with the 215 or so times the BBC has relied on Eylon Levy and other assorted ghouls for "unbiased" commentary on the Gaza war.
"1917" has just started on BBC2!
Hopefully the moving of Davie can signal a new era of quality for the BBC. Much of the loss of distinctiveness under Birt's lieutenant, Tony Hall, continued under him, and he seems to have had little feel for programme-making. The BBC urgently needs to rediscover its purpose.