This must rank as Boris's first tangible betrayal of the 'Brexit Voter'. Okay, they may have appreciated that Brexit would deprive them of some rights - but with it the right to have grandchildren?
It's an astonishing misstep. The Red Wall will not like it and nor will the Shires.
Boris derangement syndom.
No-one will notice this outside of bits of twitter. Go onto the BBC, tell me how many stories you have to go past before you see this.
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard R3 but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
If classical music cannot survive in a capitalist free market it should be allowed to fail.
I have to say, I prefer classic FM to R3 anyway. A lot of the time R3 seems to be about trying to jazz up classical music and make it attract a younger radical left audience through talking head documentaries.
That may be appealing to some. I just find it dull. A couple of daft adverts every ten minutes are a small price to pay for listening to a higher proportion of actual music.
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard R3 but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
If classical music cannot survive in a capitalist free market it should be allowed to fail.
Agreed. When I used to head the BBC's TV Licence Campaign in the early 80s someone worked out that it would be cheaper to the BBC to send a free LP each month to all those who listened regularly to R3 than keep the network going.
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard R3 but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
If classical music cannot survive in a capitalist free market it should be allowed to fail.
Absolutely right!
But considering there are many free market classical music options out there in the UK, why should it fail? Unless its just less popular than its many competitors that survive without taxes?
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard R3 but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
If classical music cannot survive in a capitalist free market it should be allowed to fail.
Agreed. When I used to head the BBC's TV Licence Campaign in the early 80s someone worked out that it would be cheaper to the BBC to send a free LP each month to all those who listened regularly to R3 than keep the network going.
Yet somehow Classic FM finds a way to exist without taxes. What capitalist madness is that?
If the BBC is to exist, and I really see no reason why it should, then it should surely exist to fund the creation of programmes for which there is insufficient commercial demand.
So, I can see the case for the government to commission some arts or educational content, and perhaps even Radio 3 or Radio 4.
Given how easy it is to distribute content these days - YouTube anyone - then the idea of the government having a chunk of spectrum to recycle programmes bought in from the US via forced subscription is absurd.
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard R3 but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
If classical music cannot survive in a capitalist free market it should be allowed to fail.
Agreed. When I used to head the BBC's TV Licence Campaign in the early 80s someone worked out that it would be cheaper to the BBC to send a free LP each month to all those who listened regularly to R3 than keep the network going.
Yet somehow Classic FM finds a way to exist without taxes. What capitalist madness is that?
Yes, but Classic FM plays classical music that people want to hear. The job of Radio 3 is to play classical music that people don't want to hear.
This is a Westminster bubble story. Much more concerning are the leaked plans to eviscerate the BBC.
You do realise the TV Poll Tax is a regressive, er, tax?
Im not defending the license fee, which is regressive, costly to administer, and outdated.
I am defending a BBC that maintains a funding mechanism safely removed from government interference.
Doesn't the current mechanism invite a lot of government interference? If they had to raise their own funds the government would have nothing to do with it.
The Government through Ofcom has great control of all TV channels.
Money wise if the BBC becomes fully commercial I guess they could raise an extra 1.5-2 billion a year, but the TV licence is worth 5 billion a year.
But it would allow for a 30% cut on the TV licence.
The key words are "unplanned pregnancies". That's the phrase that makes it clear that "long-term contraception" means from the onset of puberty at (say) age 12-15, for (say) 5-12 years. Not "until menopause".
Well, if you're comfortable with characterising the enforcement of long-term contraception on other people without their consent for an undetermined period described as "long-term" as "not sterilisation", I'm not sure there's anything I can do to help you.
His point seems to be that we already do similar things via vaccinations. Which is obviously not a perfect direct comparison, but a reasonable argument nonetheless about the relationship between individual freedoms and the rights of society not to have to deal with the consequences of selfish actions.
People have children. People that other people don't like have children. Bad people have children. Poor people have children. Criminals, benefit scroungers, all types. Since the mid-nineteenth century many people in many countries, from many motives, have advocated methods of preventing them. All of those methods when applied degenerate into heartbreaking cruelty. As a society we shy away from such prevention and allow sane people above the age of consent to breed as they see fit.
Consequently I would not characterise the enforcement of long-term contraception on other people without their consent for an undetermined period described as "long-term" as "a reasonable argument nonetheless about the relationship between individual freedoms and the rights of society not to have to deal with the consequences of selfish actions".
If the BBC is to exist, and I really see no reason why it should, then it should surely exist to fund the creation of programmes for which there is insufficient commercial demand.
So, I can see the case for the government to commission the arts or educational content, or Radio 3 or even Radio 4. Given how easy it is to distribute content these days - YouTube anyone - then the idea of the government having a chunk of spectrum to recycle programmes bought in from the US via forced subscription is absurd.
Commercial news and current affairs is an obvious market failure that the BBC helps address.
The BBC has historically played a key role in developing talent later exploited by other commercial services.
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
I'm not advocating it - although the histrionics about it are quite silly, since the mass availability and voluntary use of contraception has already enabled the largest eugenics experiment of all time - but I do approve of the shock value.
I hestitate to think of what shock value you would approve of next!
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
The irony is that it had been the right, Trump and now Johnson, that had returned to the borrow and spend economics of the late 60s and early 70s.
In the US, Trump is about to run the biggest deficit outside the context of the Great Recession. And current plans in the UK, while more modest, also assume a large late cycle loosening.
As a believer in sound money and small government, I despair.
What else can Government's do though? At this stage you would usually be cutting interest rates slightly to ease consumer spending a bit but as rates never recovered to sane levels that isn't an option.
The economic cycle is natural.
Recessions exist to flush out misallocated capital.
We've got so scared, we're creating a system where misallocated capital is never reallocated because zero interest rates allow the failed to limp ever on. And zero interest rates also allow the wealthy to engage in leveraging up to become ever wealthier, while the zombie economy limps on.
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard R3 but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
If classical music cannot survive in a capitalist free market it should be allowed to fail.
Agreed. When I used to head the BBC's TV Licence Campaign in the early 80s someone worked out that it would be cheaper to the BBC to send a free LP each month to all those who listened regularly to R3 than keep the network going.
Yet somehow Classic FM finds a way to exist without taxes. What capitalist madness is that?
Yes, but Classic FM plays classical music that people want to hear. The job of Radio 3 is to play classical music that people don't want to hear.
To be exact, it talks about the classical music people don’t want to hear.
You have to wonder though what’s the point of a radio station that plays things don’t want to listen to. The whole point of music is that people should listen.
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard R3 but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
If classical music cannot survive in a capitalist free market it should be allowed to fail.
Agreed. When I used to head the BBC's TV Licence Campaign in the early 80s someone worked out that it would be cheaper to the BBC to send a free LP each month to all those who listened regularly to R3 than keep the network going.
Yet somehow Classic FM finds a way to exist without taxes. What capitalist madness is that?
Yes, but Classic FM plays classical music that people want to hear. The job of Radio 3 is to play classical music that people don't want to hear.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Open would suggest that some of them have spines. Clearly not the CoE or the PM, so who could they be?
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Open would suggest that some of them have spines. Clearly not the CoE or the PM, so who could they be?
Would be quite funny if a second member of the cabinet resigned over Cummings days after a botched reshuffle over Cummings.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
The left was warned that if they opened up the debate on economics that the Thatcher-Blair settlement had ended, the right would respond by opening up the field of culture that the left considers their established domain.
Well, they didn't listen, so here it is. Enjoy!
You're so right. It's the nasty Left who are just making you do it. Your advocacy of eugenics and sterilization of people you don't like is entirely somebody else's fault and nothing to do with you, oh dear me no.
I'm not advocating it - although the histrionics about it are quite silly, since the mass availability and voluntary use of contraception has already enabled the largest eugenics experiment of all time - but I do approve of the shock value. If the Left wants to have 'literal communists' as its outriders and Marxists as its Shadow Chancellors, then they have declared that the civilized rules of politics no longer apply and they should not be surprised if this leads their political opponents to also think things previously considered unthinkable.
I'd prefer a mutual political disarmament so that we can all go back to the cosy pre-2015 political consensus, but Labour doesn't seem to be up for that.
I think you're fighting an enemy who doesn't exist. You're angry about the Left tearing up the fiscal compact, when - in fact - it is currently the Right who is taking us back to the economics of the 60s and 70s.
The Right that I have always supported has been the Right of limited government, of competence, of sound money. It is a Right that recognises that when the government interferes, then it usually makes things worse, not better.
The enemy is, and has always been, an overmighty state.
When you allow forced contraception for one group, how do you know that the next government down the road will not turn forced contraception on a group that you support. When you open the door to an expansion of powers of the state, no matter how good your motives, you open the door to those powers being used against you.
Of course I agree with most of that - a small state with minimal interference in personal liberty should always be the default goal of conservatism. That's also why I would never support a policy like forcible contraception ever being implemented in practice.
But it's also entirely wrong to say that the enemy doesn't exist. We've knocked the authoritarian Left on its back for a while in the UK, but it's going to come roaring back sooner than anyone imagines. That's why I sympathize with a Mutually Assured Destruction political approach to deterring them.
Alas Radio 3 is no longer the great cultural institution, envied around the world, which it used to be. There's a special circle in hell reserved for the BBC executives who wantonly wrecked it. What makes it even sillier is that they didn't even save any money by wrecking it: it costs just as much to play bleeding chunks with a DJ spouting inane nonsense between them as it does to provide a serious programme playing full pieces of music with an intelligent introduction.
I wonder if deep in the archives there are tapes of Radio 3 output from the sixties and seventies? If so, the Beeb could provide a magnificent cultural service for virtually no money by simply rebroadcasting them.
This must rank as Boris's first tangible betrayal of the 'Brexit Voter'. Okay, they may have appreciated that Brexit would deprive them of some rights - but with it the right to have grandchildren?
It's an astonishing misstep. The Red Wall will not like it and nor will the Shires.
You do realise that this isn't actually government policy?
It doesn't matter. The point, per Johnson (Lyndon not Boris) is to make the bastards deny it.
Good to see the LibDems all up in arms about eugenics.
Eugenics had its roots in Darwinism, and the Darwins and Gallstones were famous Liberal families.
Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin's son, and Liberal MP for Lichfield, wrote a number of books on the subject, including "The Need for Eugenic Reform" and "what is Eugenics". The famous Liberal William Beverage argued that those with "general defects" should be denied not only the vote, but "civil freedom and fatherhood".
Andrew Sabisky's line of thought is derived directly from early twentieth century Liberalism.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Open would suggest that some of them have spines. Clearly not the CoE or the PM, so who could they be?
Sabisky is not even a good fortune teller, so why should they bother working with him.
Good to see the LibDems all up in arms about eugenics.
Eugenics had its roots in Darwinism, and the Darwins and Gallstones were famous Liberal families.
Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin's son, and Liberal MP for Lichfield, wrote a number of books on the subject, including "The Need for Eugenic Reform" and "what is Eugenics". The famous Liberal William Beverage argued that those with "general defects" should be denied not only the vote, but "civil freedom and fatherhood".
Andrew Sabisky's line of thought is derived directly from early twentieth century Liberalism.
The Labour Party's historical connections with eugenics are if anything even greater. In fact the founders of the party were particular advocates:
Having not followed this adviser story at all today it looks tailor made for a sacrificial lamb so that cabinet members, and their advisers, falsely think Cummings will get reined in. But perhaps that quick take is overthinking it.
This is a Westminster bubble story. Much more concerning are the leaked plans to eviscerate the BBC.
You do realise the TV Poll Tax is a regressive, er, tax?
But only paid by people under 75 who choose to have BBC services in their home or online. A poll tax would apply to everyone.
Got nothing to do with choosing to have BBC services.
If I choose to have any live TV services I'm compelled to pay for this poll tax or face imprisonment, whether I want BBC services or not.
Maybe I am just old fashioned, but despite the BBC forcing PCness and most things I dislike about modern life down our throats, I would be very upset if it were to cease being the state broadcaster
The BBC don't do themselves any favours with their inability / unwillingness to change and develop.
Still not doing 4k other than the odd test programme and they have decided to develop their own HDR (its sort of for a good reason, to do with streaming, but you also have to get with the programme and offer HDR for pre-recorded stuff using current open standards). Netflix have had it for years and even basement dwellers on the YouTubes now often producing / distributing 4k content.
They wouldn't entertain putting in place a similar system to system for Freeview, to ensure people had a licence fee, and still today with iPlayer you need to create an account, but it is a nonsense to that doesn't enforce payment.
They haven't / won't really embrace YouTube when all their rivals are. BBC news should be on their as part of their world service remit, and they never use it as a way of free advertising their content. Victoria Derbyshire show focus is supposed to be all about digital engagement, yes they try to get very short clips go viral via Twitter, but again no YouTube channel.
They make their won BBC Sounds app, which isn't very good and despite their being loads of very popular options for distributing podcasts already out there.
Alas Radio 3 is no longer the great cultural institution, envied around the world, which it used to be. There's a special circle in hell reserved for the BBC executives who wantonly wrecked it. What makes it even sillier is that they didn't even save any money by wrecking it: it costs just as much to play bleeding chunks with a DJ spouting inane nonsense between them as it does to provide a serious programme playing full pieces of music with an intelligent introduction.
I wonder if deep in the archives there are tapes of Radio 3 output from the sixties and seventies? If so, the Beeb could provide a magnificent cultural service for virtually no money by simply rebroadcasting them.
I was struggling to put together my thoughts on R3, so I refreshed the page.
You have hit the nail on the head. R3 ought not to ape ClassicFM.
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
If the BBC is to exist, and I really see no reason why it should, then it should surely exist to fund the creation of programmes for which there is insufficient commercial demand.
So, I can see the case for the government to commission some arts or educational content, and perhaps even Radio 3 or Radio 4.
Given how easy it is to distribute content these days - YouTube anyone - then the idea of the government having a chunk of spectrum to recycle programmes bought in from the US via forced subscription is absurd.
Yes, it shouldn't be competing with commercial stations and paying exorbitant salaries to do so. Mark Chapman should present MOTD, for a fraction of Lineker's pay packet, for instance.
I think the BBC should be like an apprenticeship for up and coming talent, produce educational programs for schools and whatnot
Having not followed this adviser story at all today it looks tailor made for a sacrificial lamb so that cabinet members, and their advisers, falsely think Cummings will get reined in. But perhaps that quick take is overthinking it.
Long story short: They hired a fortune teller who not only can't do the job but also is a huge liability for being a bit Nazi.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Good to see the LibDems all up in arms about eugenics.
Eugenics had its roots in Darwinism, and the Darwins and Gallstones were famous Liberal families.
Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin's son, and Liberal MP for Lichfield, wrote a number of books on the subject, including "The Need for Eugenic Reform" and "what is Eugenics". The famous Liberal William Beverage argued that those with "general defects" should be denied not only the vote, but "civil freedom and fatherhood".
Andrew Sabisky's line of thought is derived directly from early twentieth century Liberalism.
The Labour Party's historical connections with eugenics are if anything even greater. In fact the founders of the party were particular advocates:
If the BBC is to exist, and I really see no reason why it should, then it should surely exist to fund the creation of programmes for which there is insufficient commercial demand.
So, I can see the case for the government to commission some arts or educational content, and perhaps even Radio 3 or Radio 4.
Given how easy it is to distribute content these days - YouTube anyone - then the idea of the government having a chunk of spectrum to recycle programmes bought in from the US via forced subscription is absurd.
Yes, it shouldn't be competing with commercial stations and paying exorbitant salaries to do so. Mark Chapman should present MOTD, for a fraction of Lineker's pay packet, for instance.
I think the BBC should be like an apprenticeship for up and coming talent, produce educational programs for schools and whatnot
Another good example where BBC are losing out. Sky and BT get the highlights of games up now on YouTube with an hour of the game finishing. I basically never watch MOTD now, because I have seen it all by 7pm.
As a kid, staying up on a Saturday night for MOTD was a big thing, when I ask all my friends kids did you see such and such goal, they say yes, saw it on YouTube.
If the BBC is to exist, and I really see no reason why it should, then it should surely exist to fund the creation of programmes for which there is insufficient commercial demand.
So, I can see the case for the government to commission the arts or educational content, or Radio 3 or even Radio 4. Given how easy it is to distribute content these days - YouTube anyone - then the idea of the government having a chunk of spectrum to recycle programmes bought in from the US via forced subscription is absurd.
Commercial news and current affairs is an obvious market failure that the BBC helps address.
The BBC has historically played a key role in developing talent later exploited by other commercial services.
Most European countries have publicly-funded TV channels and some now fund TV from general taxation. This is apparently at least 10-20% cheaper than the current method because it eliminates the admin. costs of the TV poll tax, um sorry, 'licence fee'. The World Service was organised this way for most of its history. The rest should follow.
Having not followed this adviser story at all today it looks tailor made for a sacrificial lamb so that cabinet members, and their advisers, falsely think Cummings will get reined in. But perhaps that quick take is overthinking it.
Long story short: They hired a fortune teller who not only can't do the job but also is a huge liability for being a bit Nazi.
Thanks. Perfect for Cummings to be seen to lose on then, and idiocy if that's not the plan.
Good to see the LibDems all up in arms about eugenics.
Eugenics had its roots in Darwinism, and the Darwins and Gallstones were famous Liberal families.
Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin's son, and Liberal MP for Lichfield, wrote a number of books on the subject, including "The Need for Eugenic Reform" and "what is Eugenics". The famous Liberal William Beverage argued that those with "general defects" should be denied not only the vote, but "civil freedom and fatherhood".
Andrew Sabisky's line of thought is derived directly from early twentieth century Liberalism.
Yes and back then women were little better than slaves. Go back another 50 years and children were chimney sweeps. Your point is?
Things move on. Those in the Labour / Liberal / Conservative ** party of today are not those who were alive 100 years ago. Things can change for the better.
Maybe I am just old fashioned, but despite the BBC forcing PCness and most things I dislike about modern life down our throats, I would be very upset if it were to cease being the state broadcaster
Nothing old hat about this. The Beeb is one of the ties that bind. We would miss it.
This is a Westminster bubble story. Much more concerning are the leaked plans to eviscerate the BBC.
You do realise the TV Poll Tax is a regressive, er, tax?
But only paid by people under 75 who choose to have BBC services in their home or online. A poll tax would apply to everyone.
Got nothing to do with choosing to have BBC services.
If I choose to have any live TV services I'm compelled to pay for this poll tax or face imprisonment, whether I want BBC services or not.
Maybe I am just old fashioned, but despite the BBC forcing PCness and most things I dislike about modern life down our throats, I would be very upset if it were to cease being the state broadcaster
Why?
I think some people are overly fond of what the BBC used to be, rather than what it and its competitors are now.
Maybe I am just old fashioned, but despite the BBC forcing PCness and most things I dislike about modern life down our throats, I would be very upset if it were to cease being the state broadcaster
Nothing old hat about this. The Beeb is one of the ties that bind. We would miss it.
How are we bound to the Beeb if we don't watch it?
And why should we be tied to paying for the Beeb if we don't watch it?
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard R3 but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
If classical music cannot survive in a capitalist free market it should be allowed to fail.
Rubbish, classical music will always survive to some degree but not to the level and extent accessible on R3.
I am also not and never have been a pure free marketeer, on your argument if you cannot afford healthcare in a capitalist free market you should be allowed to die.
The state has a job to intervene where the market does not provide ample provision
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
This is a Westminster bubble story. Much more concerning are the leaked plans to eviscerate the BBC.
You do realise the TV Poll Tax is a regressive, er, tax?
But only paid by people under 75 who choose to have BBC services in their home or online. A poll tax would apply to everyone.
Got nothing to do with choosing to have BBC services.
If I choose to have any live TV services I'm compelled to pay for this poll tax or face imprisonment, whether I want BBC services or not.
Maybe I am just old fashioned, but despite the BBC forcing PCness and most things I dislike about modern life down our throats, I would be very upset if it were to cease being the state broadcaster
Why?
I think some people are overly fond of what the BBC used to be, rather than what it and its competitors are now.
Not PH
"PETER HITCHENS: I love what the BBC used to be, but I can't defend it any longer"
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
"Newspapers fear new social media rules will lead to wider censorship"
"News Media Association asks UK government for ‘harmful content’ opt-out for news publishers"
This appears to be completely bonkers - the proposal appears to be that social media will be banned from posting "harmful content" - but mainstream newspaper websites will have an exemption so they CAN post harmful content.
Haven't seen any comment about this - how on earth can this possibly be tenable?
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard R3 but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
If classical music cannot survive in a capitalist free market it should be allowed to fail.
Rubbish, classical music will always survive to some degree but not to the level and extent accessible on R3.
I am also not and never have been a pure free marketeer, on your argument if you cannot afford healthcare in a capitalist free market you should be allowed to die.
The state has a job to intervene where the market does not provide ample provision
Rubbish.
Name anything you can access on R3 that you can't access on YouTube?
And why should we pay taxes so you can access that?
Good to see the LibDems all up in arms about eugenics.
Eugenics had its roots in Darwinism, and the Darwins and Gallstones were famous Liberal families.
Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin's son, and Liberal MP for Lichfield, wrote a number of books on the subject, including "The Need for Eugenic Reform" and "what is Eugenics". The famous Liberal William Beverage argued that those with "general defects" should be denied not only the vote, but "civil freedom and fatherhood".
Andrew Sabisky's line of thought is derived directly from early twentieth century Liberalism.
I think it fair to say that Liberalism has moved on significantly over the last century.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
A broken clock is right twice a day.
You also predicted that Corbyn would revive Labour in Scotland, or have you forgotten that one?
The key words are "unplanned pregnancies". That's the phrase that makes it clear that "long-term contraception" means from the onset of puberty at (say) age 12-15, for (say) 5-12 years. Not "until menopause".
Well, if you're comfortable with characterising the enforcement of long-term contraception on other people without their consent for an undetermined period described as "long-term" as "not sterilisation", I'm not sure there's anything I can do to help you.
His point seems to be that we already do similar things via vaccinations. Which is obviously not a perfect direct comparison, but a reasonable argument nonetheless about the relationship between individual freedoms and the rights of society not to have to deal with the consequences of selfish actions.
People have children. People that other people don't like have children. Bad people have children. Poor people have children. Criminals, benefit scroungers, all types. Since the mid-nineteenth century many people in many countries, from many motives, have advocated methods of preventing them. All of those methods when applied degenerate into heartbreaking cruelty. As a society we shy away from such prevention and allow sane people above the age of consent to breed as they see fit.
Consequently I would not characterise the enforcement of long-term contraception on other people without their consent for an undetermined period described as "long-term" as "a reasonable argument nonetheless about the relationship between individual freedoms and the rights of society not to have to deal with the consequences of selfish actions".
It's interesting you mention the age of consent. There is, on average, at least a few years between the onset of puberty and the age of consent. Long term? Maybe not. But close.
Again, all he's saying is that it's not in children's best interests to be brought up by teenage parents.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
You sure were, and so many mockers were sure they knew better
"Newspapers fear new social media rules will lead to wider censorship"
"News Media Association asks UK government for ‘harmful content’ opt-out for news publishers"
This appears to be completely bonkers - the proposal appears to be that social media will be banned from posting "harmful content" - but mainstream newspaper websites will have an exemption so they CAN post harmful content.
Haven't seen any comment about this - how on earth can this possibly be tenable?
This is a Westminster bubble story. Much more concerning are the leaked plans to eviscerate the BBC.
You do realise the TV Poll Tax is a regressive, er, tax?
But only paid by people under 75 who choose to have BBC services in their home or online. A poll tax would apply to everyone.
Got nothing to do with choosing to have BBC services.
If I choose to have any live TV services I'm compelled to pay for this poll tax or face imprisonment, whether I want BBC services or not.
Maybe I am just old fashioned, but despite the BBC forcing PCness and most things I dislike about modern life down our throats, I would be very upset if it were to cease being the state broadcaster
Why?
I think some people are overly fond of what the BBC used to be, rather than what it and its competitors are now.
Not PH
"PETER HITCHENS: I love what the BBC used to be, but I can't defend it any longer"
Speaking of broken clocks being right twice a day. First time I've ever agreed with him that I know of (not read the article though, so probably don't agree with his logic).
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
A broken clock is right twice a day.
You also predicted that Corbyn would revive Labour in Scotland, or have you forgotten that one?
His also said it was more likely he would be struck by a meteorite than Macron would become President of France.
(I actually find @HYUFD pretty good on UK politics. But abroad, he suffers from having a view and never changing it, irrespecitve of any evidence. Hence his insistence that Marine Le Pen won the French Presidential election.
I once offered to pay for a poll where we should people clips, chosen by him and I, to see whether people found Biden charismatic. And he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "No matter what evidence there is, it won't change the fact that Biden is charismatic.")
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard R3 but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
If classical music cannot survive in a capitalist free market it should be allowed to fail.
Rubbish, classical music will always survive to some degree but not to the level and extent accessible on R3.
I am also not and never have been a pure free marketeer, on your argument if you cannot afford healthcare in a capitalist free market you should be allowed to die.
The state has a job to intervene where the market does not provide ample provision
Rubbish
Name anything you can access on R3 that you can't access on YouTube?
And why should we pay taxes so you can access that?
Live broadcasts from concerts and opera, analysis and discussion programmes on a whole range of art and cultural programmes etc and YouTube content is frequently removed if you breach content.
In any case you are a libertarian fanatic so driven by ideology
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
There's always Classic FM
Half of what it plays is film music
That’s also true of the New York Philharmonic these days.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
A broken clock is right twice a day.
You also predicted that Corbyn would revive Labour in Scotland, or have you forgotten that one?
In 2017 Labour gained 6 seats in Scotland under Corbyn
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
A broken clock is right twice a day.
You also predicted that Corbyn would revive Labour in Scotland, or have you forgotten that one?
His also said it was more likely he would be struck by a meteorite than Macron would become President of France.
(I actually find @HYUFD pretty good on UK politics. But abroad, he suffers from having a view and never changing it, irrespecitve of any evidence. Hence his insistence that Marine Le Pen won the French Presidential election.
I once offered to pay for a poll where we should people clips, chosen by him and I, to see whether people found Biden charismatic. And he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "No matter what evidence there is, it won't change the fact that Biden is charismatic.")
I have said Sanders is likely to get the Democratic nomination for some time (even though I think Biden would be better) and that looks increasingly to be the case
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
There's always Classic FM
Half of what it plays is film music
Radio Suisse Classic is better. It pumps out proper classical music (not movie scores) on the Internet 24/7 without ads and you can chose to listen to the announcements in French, German or Italian - great preparation for a continental holiday. And they have a separate jazz station for light relief.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
A broken clock is right twice a day.
You also predicted that Corbyn would revive Labour in Scotland, or have you forgotten that one?
His also said it was more likely he would be struck by a meteorite than Macron would become President of France.
(I actually find @HYUFD pretty good on UK politics. But abroad, he suffers from having a view and never changing it, irrespecitve of any evidence. Hence his insistence that Marine Le Pen won the French Presidential election.
I once offered to pay for a poll where we should people clips, chosen by him and I, to see whether people found Biden charismatic. And he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "No matter what evidence there is, it won't change the fact that Biden is charismatic.")
Not sure I ever said that about Macron, certainly once it got closer to the final round
How are we bound to the Beeb if we don't watch it?
And why should we be tied to paying for the Beeb if we don't watch it?
It's not compulsory to watch it just as it's not compulsory to use the M6. But both are integral to the health and welfare of the nation. All pay for all, some use the swings, others the roundabout.
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard R3 but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
If classical music cannot survive in a capitalist free market it should be allowed to fail.
Agreed. When I used to head the BBC's TV Licence Campaign in the early 80s someone worked out that it would be cheaper to the BBC to send a free LP each month to all those who listened regularly to R3 than keep the network going.
Yet somehow Classic FM finds a way to exist without taxes. What capitalist madness is that?
Yes, but Classic FM plays classical music that people want to hear. The job of Radio 3 is to play classical music that people don't want to hear.
To be exact, it talks about the classical music people don’t want to hear.
You have to wonder though what’s the point of a radio station that plays things don’t want to listen to. The whole point of music is that people should listen.
There is probably a majority, maybe large one really, against paying close attention to Dickens, Shakespeare, Homer, Leonardo, Ibsen, George Eliot, Dante, Vermeer and Thomas Hardy, but that isn't an argument for them being either worthless or of less value than Little Mix or Love Island; so Radio 3 can still have a reason to experiment and explore. Beethoven was unlistenable modernity once.
Cabinet 'are in open revolt' over Dominic Cummings' new 'super forecaster' adviser Andrew Sabisky as they 'refuse to attend meetings where he is present and won't answer his emails'
Fucking hell, wish they'd been offering the odds, that's worse than HYUFD.
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
A broken clock is right twice a day.
You also predicted that Corbyn would revive Labour in Scotland, or have you forgotten that one?
A stopped clock is right twice a day, a broken clock might have both hands missing!
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
You were. And I claim an honourable draw with you because I said Johnson too but a bit later than you and I not only said Con majority but the big one of 60 plus.
Tie breaker is POTUS. I say Trump is toast. You say he wins. ❔
I seem to recall I was one of the few on here both predicting Boris would become next Tory leader and he would win a majority and was correct on both counts
You were. And I claim an honourable draw with you because I said Johnson too but a bit later than you and I not only said Con majority but the big one of 60 plus.
Tie breaker is POTUS. I say Trump is toast. You say he wins. ❔
I say Trump wins assuming Biden or Bloomberg are not Democratic nominee (which I don't think they will be) and maybe even then
So the young, who vote Labour, don't see the point of the BBC.
Meanwhile the old, who vote Tory, watch it 24/7.
So which party wants rid?
Wait until middle england finds out Radio 2 is to be binned.
MPs will not know what has hit them.
Why would one of the most popular radio stations in the country be under threat. I think it is much more likely R3 would be under threat as would the niche stations like Asian Network.
Much as I like R2 there is no cultural need for it, R3 on the other hand is a global bastion of serious classical music.
The ST reports the Government wants the BBC to safeguard R3 but hard to see how that will happen without some form of government subsidy
If classical music cannot survive in a capitalist free market it should be allowed to fail.
Rubbish, classical music will always survive to some degree but not to the level and extent accessible on R3.
I am also not and never have been a pure free marketeer, on your argument if you cannot afford healthcare in a capitalist free market you should be allowed to die.
The state has a job to intervene where the market does not provide ample provision
"We send £350m each week to the EU.
Let's fund string quartets instead"
I don't think us Leavers would have won with that on the side of a bus.
Good to see the LibDems all up in arms about eugenics.
Eugenics had its roots in Darwinism, and the Darwins and Gallstones were famous Liberal families.
Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin's son, and Liberal MP for Lichfield, wrote a number of books on the subject, including "The Need for Eugenic Reform" and "what is Eugenics". The famous Liberal William Beverage argued that those with "general defects" should be denied not only the vote, but "civil freedom and fatherhood".
Andrew Sabisky's line of thought is derived directly from early twentieth century Liberalism.
Yebbut we’ve had a century of thought, and Hitler’s enthusiasm for eugenics via the T9 programme and later the Holocaust, plus the advance of science, to rip away any shred of morality or legitimacy these ideas may once have had.
It's the infant mortality that's so depressing there.
And 171 women in childbed. Very dangerous business giving birth in those days.
It's pretty dangerous these days too.
My wife almost had a cardiac arrest giving birth to our daughter last year, and suffered a 70% third degree tear.
It's very upsetting to think that "back in the day", the birthing process, or the blood loss or post natal septicemia or infection could have killed her, even if the baby survived (which it might not have either as formula milk wasn't a thing then).
Maternity services are really quite alarming in this country. East Kent is in the news, Shropshire too, but also Morcambe Bay and Wales.
Blaming it on individuals and single units is avoiding the real crisis issues.
So why is that @Foxy? Is it lack of resources, failure to apply good practice, what? We have had similar scandals in Scotland too.
FPT:
I would say that the widespread geography of the scandals shows a systematic problems rather than unit specific. It is worth noting that while our maternal and perinatal mortality is poorer than most of Europe, it is better than the USA. I wouldn't want to pre-judge any enquiry, but would suggest the following merit attention:
1) the toxic relationships between midwives and obstetricians and anaesthetists, going back even before the Wendy Savage business in the Eighties.
2) the collapse of Obstetrics from one of the most oversubscribed specialities 20 years ago, to struggling to fill training slots.
3) this may well explain the difficulties providing adequate and competent Labour ward cover, and increasing burden on ageing senior Consultants.
4) the Cinderella nature of a speciality that has become a money loser for Trusts. There are no targets, unlike waiting list oriented specialities, nor interest by the vulture capitalists of the independent sector. No targets means minimal investment.
5) the rising demand, not just from birthrate, but also from older mothers, and increase in multiple births. All in an increasingly litigious environment.
There are more issues, and sadly not easy ones to fix.
There is probably a majority, maybe large one really, against paying close attention to Dickens, Shakespeare, Homer, Leonardo, Ibsen, George Eliot, Dante, Vermeer and Thomas Hardy, but that isn't an argument for them being either worthless or of less value than Little Mix or Love Island; so Radio 3 can still have a reason to experiment and explore. Beethoven was unlistenable modernity once.
When was the last time you saw a production of Volpone, The Spanish Tragedy or The Jew of Malta?
Or, for the matter of that, listened to a symphony by Johann Rufinatscha or William Sterndale Bennet?
These are all culturally significant - arguably Kyd was more important in the development of the English stage than Shakespeare. But they are neglected, because people are not interested in them. Does radio 3 bring them back?
Meanwhile, some of our greatest classical composers work as film composers - Williams and Morricone spring to mind. And there is a reason for that, just as there is a reason why Bach worked primarily as a religious composer.
So it won't work, CO2 levels have decoupled from CO2 emissions, something else is causing it now. Anyway, if he wants to kill all life on earth, him first.
...all he's saying is that it's not in children's best interests to be brought up by teenage parents.
To change the subject for the moment: teenage parents were not exceptional until very recently, definitely post World-War 2. Women in their late 20's were described as "older mothers" up until the 90's. Society as it is currently constructed is not the same as it has been constructed throughout most of history.
So it won't work, CO2 levels have decoupled from CO2 emissions, something else is causing it now. Anyway, if he wants to kill all life on earth, him first.
How are we bound to the Beeb if we don't watch it?
And why should we be tied to paying for the Beeb if we don't watch it?
It's not compulsory to watch it just as it's not compulsory to use the M6. But both are integral to the health and welfare of the nation. All pay for all, some use the swings, others the roundabout.
Transport is integral to the country.
The Beeb isn't integral to anything. If the Beeb disappeared tomorrow then we'd live and move on, but if the Beeb is popular people will voluntarily pay for it.
So it won't work, CO2 levels have decoupled from CO2 emissions, something else is causing it now. Anyway, if he wants to kill all life on earth, him first.
Getting the gender of the prof wrong is a bit of a giveaway that you didn't read the article!
So it won't work, CO2 levels have decoupled from CO2 emissions, something else is causing it now. Anyway, if he wants to kill all life on earth, him first.
I think you're wrong on both points.
Firstly the first article doesn't talk about global CO2 emissions being flat. It says global CO2 emissions from energy is flat - but CO2 emissions aren't all from energy.
Secondly the second link doesn't show the increase in CO2 increasing. The increase in CO2 in 2019 was 2.46 which is lower than in 2012, 2015, 2016 and 2018.
Good to see the LibDems all up in arms about eugenics.
Eugenics had its roots in Darwinism, and the Darwins and Gallstones were famous Liberal families.
Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin's son, and Liberal MP for Lichfield, wrote a number of books on the subject, including "The Need for Eugenic Reform" and "what is Eugenics". The famous Liberal William Beverage argued that those with "general defects" should be denied not only the vote, but "civil freedom and fatherhood".
Andrew Sabisky's line of thought is derived directly from early twentieth century Liberalism.
I think it fair to say that Liberalism has moved on significantly over the last century.
If moving on means synonymous with a slightly less left Labour Party, it’s moved on. Any interesting thinkers have long left the building.
So it won't work, CO2 levels have decoupled from CO2 emissions, something else is causing it now. Anyway, if he wants to kill all life on earth, him first.
Getting the gender of the prof wrong is a bit of a giveaway that you didn't read the article!
And noone is going to be killed.
I don't care about the gender of a crazy person.
If someone proposes something he/she should try it on him/her self first to see if it works.
...all he's saying is that it's not in children's best interests to be brought up by teenage parents.
To change the subject for the moment: teenage parents were not exceptional until very recently, definitely post World-War 2. Women in their late 20's were described as "older mothers" up until the 90's. Society as it is currently constructed is not the same as it has been constructed throughout most of history.
From the biological perspective certainly the Angele Rayner approach of children first then career is a better one.
Low fertility rates amongst the educated and high fertility rates amongst the less educated seem a pretty universal and time honoured phenomenon. Whilst this motivated the early Eugenics movement, regression to the mean has meant that population intelligence has not really changed over the century*. Indeed it has created space for some social mobility to happen.
*there is some interesting work that suggests this may be a genuine phenomenon over the last decade. I blame mobile phones and iPads myself...
There is probably a majority, maybe large one really, against paying close attention to Dickens, Shakespeare, Homer, Leonardo, Ibsen, George Eliot, Dante, Vermeer and Thomas Hardy, but that isn't an argument for them being either worthless or of less value than Little Mix or Love Island; so Radio 3 can still have a reason to experiment and explore. Beethoven was unlistenable modernity once.
When was the last time you saw a production of Volpone, The Spanish Tragedy or The Jew of Malta?
Or, for the matter of that, listened to a symphony by Johann Rufinatscha or William Sterndale Bennet?
These are all culturally significant - arguably Kyd was more important in the development of the English stage than Shakespeare. But they are neglected, because people are not interested in them. Does radio 3 bring them back?
Meanwhile, some of our greatest classical composers work as film composers - Williams and Morricone spring to mind. And there is a reason for that, just as there is a reason why Bach worked primarily as a religious composer.
So it won't work, CO2 levels have decoupled from CO2 emissions, something else is causing it now. Anyway, if he wants to kill all life on earth, him first.
Getting the gender of the prof wrong is a bit of a giveaway that you didn't read the article!
And noone is going to be killed.
I don't care about the gender of a crazy person.
If someone proposes something he/she should try it on him/her self first to see if it works.
Comments
No-one will notice this outside of bits of twitter. Go onto the BBC, tell me how many stories you have to go past before you see this.
That may be appealing to some. I just find it dull. A couple of daft adverts every ten minutes are a small price to pay for listening to a higher proportion of actual music.
But considering there are many free market classical music options out there in the UK, why should it fail? Unless its just less popular than its many competitors that survive without taxes?
So, I can see the case for the government to commission some arts or educational content, and perhaps even Radio 3 or Radio 4.
Given how easy it is to distribute content these days - YouTube anyone - then the idea of the government having a chunk of spectrum to recycle programmes bought in from the US via forced subscription is absurd.
Money wise if the BBC becomes fully commercial I guess they could raise an extra 1.5-2 billion a year, but the TV licence is worth 5 billion a year.
But it would allow for a 30% cut on the TV licence.
Consequently I would not characterise the enforcement of long-term contraception on other people without their consent for an undetermined period described as "long-term" as "a reasonable argument nonetheless about the relationship between individual freedoms and the rights of society not to have to deal with the consequences of selfish actions".
The BBC has historically played a key role in developing talent later exploited by other commercial services.
Recessions exist to flush out misallocated capital.
We've got so scared, we're creating a system where misallocated capital is never reallocated because zero interest rates allow the failed to limp ever on. And zero interest rates also allow the wealthy to engage in leveraging up to become ever wealthier, while the zombie economy limps on.
You have to wonder though what’s the point of a radio station that plays things don’t want to listen to. The whole point of music is that people should listen.
Something even YouTube can do nowadays.
His guesses are not that good:
https://twitter.com/EurasiaGroup/status/1219741711233978368
I wonder if Cummings would have done better hiring a gypsy card reader.
But it's also entirely wrong to say that the enemy doesn't exist. We've knocked the authoritarian Left on its back for a while in the UK, but it's going to come roaring back sooner than anyone imagines. That's why I sympathize with a Mutually Assured Destruction political approach to deterring them.
I wonder if deep in the archives there are tapes of Radio 3 output from the sixties and seventies? If so, the Beeb could provide a magnificent cultural service for virtually no money by simply rebroadcasting them.
Eugenics had its roots in Darwinism, and the Darwins and Gallstones were famous Liberal families.
Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin's son, and Liberal MP for Lichfield, wrote a number of books on the subject, including "The Need for Eugenic Reform" and "what is Eugenics". The famous Liberal William Beverage argued that those with "general defects" should be denied not only the vote, but "civil freedom and fatherhood".
Andrew Sabisky's line of thought is derived directly from early twentieth century Liberalism.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left
And yes it's nobody's lead story atm. But it's bubbling up and will be on the grid shortly unless Johnson acts decisively to shut it down.
No doubt he will. He's not PM for nothing.
Still not doing 4k other than the odd test programme and they have decided to develop their own HDR (its sort of for a good reason, to do with streaming, but you also have to get with the programme and offer HDR for pre-recorded stuff using current open standards). Netflix have had it for years and even basement dwellers on the YouTubes now often producing / distributing 4k content.
They wouldn't entertain putting in place a similar system to system for Freeview, to ensure people had a licence fee, and still today with iPlayer you need to create an account, but it is a nonsense to that doesn't enforce payment.
They haven't / won't really embrace YouTube when all their rivals are. BBC news should be on their as part of their world service remit, and they never use it as a way of free advertising their content. Victoria Derbyshire show focus is supposed to be all about digital engagement, yes they try to get very short clips go viral via Twitter, but again no YouTube channel.
They make their won BBC Sounds app, which isn't very good and despite their being loads of very popular options for distributing podcasts already out there.
You have hit the nail on the head. R3 ought not to ape ClassicFM.
I think the BBC should be like an apprenticeship for up and coming talent, produce educational programs for schools and whatnot
They hired a fortune teller who not only can't do the job but also is a huge liability for being a bit Nazi.
And yet he never proposed the obvious solution of preventing poor people from having children.
As a kid, staying up on a Saturday night for MOTD was a big thing, when I ask all my friends kids did you see such and such goal, they say yes, saw it on YouTube.
Things move on. Those in the Labour / Liberal / Conservative ** party of today are not those who were alive 100 years ago. Things can change for the better.
** Delete as appropriate
I think some people are overly fond of what the BBC used to be, rather than what it and its competitors are now.
And why should we be tied to paying for the Beeb if we don't watch it?
I am also not and never have been a pure free marketeer, on your argument if you cannot afford healthcare in a capitalist free market you should be allowed to die.
The state has a job to intervene where the market does not provide ample provision
"PETER HITCHENS: I love what the BBC used to be, but I can't defend it any longer"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7982061/PETER-HITCHENS-love-BBC-used-defend-longer.html
"News Media Association asks UK government for ‘harmful content’ opt-out for news publishers"
This appears to be completely bonkers - the proposal appears to be that social media will be banned from posting "harmful content" - but mainstream newspaper websites will have an exemption so they CAN post harmful content.
Haven't seen any comment about this - how on earth can this possibly be tenable?
Name anything you can access on R3 that you can't access on YouTube?
And why should we pay taxes so you can access that?
You also predicted that Corbyn would revive Labour in Scotland, or have you forgotten that one?
Again, all he's saying is that it's not in children's best interests to be brought up by teenage parents.
(I actually find @HYUFD pretty good on UK politics. But abroad, he suffers from having a view and never changing it, irrespecitve of any evidence. Hence his insistence that Marine Le Pen won the French Presidential election.
I once offered to pay for a poll where we should people clips, chosen by him and I, to see whether people found Biden charismatic. And he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "No matter what evidence there is, it won't change the fact that Biden is charismatic.")
That's 1/10th of the world population.
In any case you are a libertarian fanatic so driven by ideology
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/13/newspapers-fear-ofcom-regulation-could-lead-to-censorship
'Old school goth' philosophy professor says the ONLY way to save the planet is to stop having children and 'let humans become extinct'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8009861/Old-school-goth-philosophy-professor-says-way-save-planet-stop-having-children.html
http://www.radioswissclassic.ch/en
Tie breaker is POTUS. I say Trump is toast. You say he wins. ❔
https://twitter.com/PeterKGeoghegan/status/1229068966615830528?s=20
Sympathies.
Let's fund string quartets instead"
I don't think us Leavers would have won with that on the side of a bus.
Or, for the matter of that, listened to a symphony by Johann Rufinatscha or William Sterndale Bennet?
These are all culturally significant - arguably Kyd was more important in the development of the English stage than Shakespeare. But they are neglected, because people are not interested in them. Does radio 3 bring them back?
Meanwhile, some of our greatest classical composers work as film composers - Williams and Morricone spring to mind. And there is a reason for that, just as there is a reason why Bach worked primarily as a religious composer.
Global CO2 emissions are flat in the past 7 years:
https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019
Yet the rate of increase of CO2 levels is still increasing:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
So it won't work, CO2 levels have decoupled from CO2 emissions, something else is causing it now.
Anyway, if he wants to kill all life on earth, him first.
The Beeb isn't integral to anything. If the Beeb disappeared tomorrow then we'd live and move on, but if the Beeb is popular people will voluntarily pay for it.
And noone is going to be killed.
Firstly the first article doesn't talk about global CO2 emissions being flat. It says global CO2 emissions from energy is flat - but CO2 emissions aren't all from energy.
Secondly the second link doesn't show the increase in CO2 increasing. The increase in CO2 in 2019 was 2.46 which is lower than in 2012, 2015, 2016 and 2018.
If someone proposes something he/she should try it on him/her self first to see if it works.
Low fertility rates amongst the educated and high fertility rates amongst the less educated seem a pretty universal and time honoured phenomenon. Whilst this motivated the early Eugenics movement, regression to the mean has meant that population intelligence has not really changed over the century*. Indeed it has created space for some social mobility to happen.
*there is some interesting work that suggests this may be a genuine phenomenon over the last decade. I blame mobile phones and iPads myself...
Why would the number be any different from the License Fee?
Approx 28 million dwellings, which each have an elec bill.
TV Licenses currently paid: 26 million.
Average UK Elec Bill is about £725.
So your "tiny fixed charge" is adding ... er .... 20%.
No one will notice that :-) .
Johann Rufinatscha, I assume this is who you mean? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMqR86CI81M
William Sterndale Bennet - I'm assuming you mean this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hc4OrU9qF0
And so on. Should we pay taxes to YouTube to ensure this is available?