So the story was to get new legs, and hence we know why he was sacked
Just goes to show that adopting the same 'wait for it to blow over' tactic does not always work - they should have guessed there'd be more coming that would force them to act, and in misjudgement have made it worse for themselves. Whatever the rights or wrongs they've sustained at least minor political damage to no gain.
The journalists will have known that somebody who has made outrageous comments in one place on the internet surely has more to be discovered, if they go digging for it.
On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.
In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.
So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.
What exactly is the shame?
That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.
Er, yes, Boris Johnson - such a bland anodyne person. Or maybe he’s exactly as you describe: someone with “a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades and then they make you Leader.”
Right, I know I'm somewhat invested in all this - but is the latest press release by Bloomberg pointing out a whole bunch of err... inconvienent truths about him is the strangest tactic I've ever seen.
If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.
Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.
The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.
There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.
I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.
Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
BBC should be limited to salaries of comparable media companies with global reach, like Google.
BBC is comparable to Google 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You're probably being serious rather than sarcastic too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?
We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.
Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?
On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.
In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.
So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.
There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance. And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.
Eugenics, sterilisation, trying to stop a so-called “underclass” from breeding have all been tried - in Germany, in the US, in Sweden, for instance. The results are there for anyone with the intelligence to see and understand, though not apparently to this ignoramus with an inflated idea of his own intelligence.
His comments on FGM showed total ignorance of the fact that it is a crime and why.
It is not provocation which is needed or, at least, not just that on its own. What we need are well-thought through ideas and, above all, judgment, common sense and some ethical sense. Plus some idea of what problem exactly is being addressed. Sabisky was, based on what we have learnt, utterly lacking in all these qualities.
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.
In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.
So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.
What exactly is the shame?
That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.
Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?
We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.
Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?
Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?
We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.
Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?
I’ve been on tons of European continental ones and they’re not like that. The worst you get is occasionally being shunted about in the middle of the night.
If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.
Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.
The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.
There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.
I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.
Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
BBC should be limited to salaries of comparable media companies with global reach, like Google.
BBC is comparable to Google 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You're probably being serious rather than sarcastic too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
LOL!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
BBC is comparable to part of Google (YouTube). They both spend tons of money to make the good things everyone likes, and don't make a lot of money. It's not comparable to DWP or a motor tax office that way.
On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.
In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.
So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.
There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance. And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.
Eugenics, sterilisation, trying to stop a so-called “underclass” from breeding have all been tried - in Germany, in the US, in Sweden, for instance. The results are there for anyone with the intelligence to see and understand, though not apparently to this ignoramus with an inflated idea of his own intelligence.
His comments on FGM showed total ignorance of the fact that it is a crime and why.
It is not provocation which is needed or, at least, not just that on its own. What we need are well-thought through ideas and, above all, judgment, common sense and some ethical sense. Plus some idea of what problem exactly is being addressed. Sabisky was, based on what we have learnt, utterly lacking in all these qualities.
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
Ask a supporter of the Labour Party. There are plenty of them on here.
On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.
In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.
So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.
What exactly is the shame?
That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.
Er, yes, Boris Johnson - such a bland anodyne person. Or maybe he’s exactly as you describe: someone with “a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades and then they make you Leader.”
Boris Johnson is the exception that proves the rule - but only a partial one in that his ideas are far from crazy.
I'd like him to use his influence to allow those on the right the same freedom as the left has to do off-the-wall thinking without losing their careers.
Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?
We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.
Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?
I’ve been on tons of European continental ones and they’re not like that. The worst you get is occasionally being shunted about in the middle of the night.
I had a very noisy and bumpy sleeper between Krakow and Budapest. Very noisy brakes and uncomfortably hot too.
Not as bad as the laughably titled Acropolis Express in the early eighties mind you!
Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?
We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.
Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?
I’ve been on tons of European continental ones and they’re not like that. The worst you get is occasionally being shunted about in the middle of the night.
Thanks - maybe we will give them a try then and hope for a better experience.
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.
On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.
In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.
So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.
What exactly is the shame?
That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.
Er, yes, Boris Johnson - such a bland anodyne person. Or maybe he’s exactly as you describe: someone with “a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades and then they make you Leader.”
Boris Johnson is the exception that proves the rule - but only a partial one in that his ideas are far from crazy.
I'd like him to use his influence to allow those on the right the same freedom as the left has to do off-the-wall thinking without losing their careers.
You want him to copy Corbyn?
So anti-semitism on the left and eugenics on the right. Mmmmm - lovely....
On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.
In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.
So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.
What exactly is the shame?
That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.
Er, yes, Boris Johnson - such a bland anodyne person. Or maybe he’s exactly as you describe: someone with “a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades and then they make you Leader.”
Boris Johnson is the exception that proves the rule - but only a partial one in that his ideas are far from crazy.
I'd like him to use his influence to allow those on the right the same freedom as the left has to do off-the-wall thinking without losing their careers.
You want him to copy Corbyn?
So anti-semitism on the left and eugenics on the right. Mmmmm - lovely....
No - as I've said on here before, give me the cosy, civilized pre-2015 consensus any day. But I strongly object to my side having to engage in the political arena with both hands tied behind our backs while literally anything goes on the other.
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
No, we don’t
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.
On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.
In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.
So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.
What exactly is the shame?
That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.
Er, yes, Boris Johnson - such a bland anodyne person. Or maybe he’s exactly as you describe: someone with “a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades and then they make you Leader.”
Boris Johnson is the exception that proves the rule - but only a partial one in that his ideas are far from crazy.
I'd like him to use his influence to allow those on the right the same freedom as the left has to do off-the-wall thinking without losing their careers.
You want him to copy Corbyn?
So anti-semitism on the left and eugenics on the right. Mmmmm - lovely....
No - as I've said on here before, give me the cosy, civilized pre-2015 consensus any day. But I strongly object to my side having to engage in the political arena with both hands tied behind our backs while literally anything goes on the other.
Your side is in power. If your side wants to talk about the benefits of eugenics you are perfectly free to do so. And those of who think this morally despicable balls are also free to say so.
It often seems to me that the desire not to have “both hands tied behind” your backs actually means not having to face any criticism or challenge. Well, tough. Corbyn’s Labour got it with both barrels over his nonsense - both from commentators and voters - and so will - and should - your side when it does the same.
If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.
Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.
The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.
There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.
I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.
Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
BBC should be limited to salaries of comparable media companies with global reach, like Google.
BBC is comparable to Google 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You're probably being serious rather than sarcastic too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
LOL!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
BBC is comparable to part of Google (YouTube). They both spend tons of money to make the good things everyone likes, and don't make a lot of money. It's not comparable to DWP or a motor tax office that way.
BBC turnover £4.889 billion (2019) Google turnover £160.74 billion (2018)
Yeah they're comparable! 😂
Google has 1.5 billion global users.
BBC and Google are comparable in the same way as Liverpool and Tranmere Rovers are comparable.
The former Commons Speaker John Bercow has described parliamentary staff members who allege that he bullied people as “snobs and bigots”, and claimed he is the victim of a concerted campaign to destroy his reputation.
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.
Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.
Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.
Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.
The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.
There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.
I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.
Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
BBC should be limited to salaries of comparable media companies with global reach, like Google.
BBC is comparable to Google 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You're probably being serious rather than sarcastic too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
LOL!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
BBC is comparable to part of Google (YouTube). They both spend tons of money to make the good things everyone likes, and don't make a lot of money. It's not comparable to DWP or a motor tax office that way.
BBC turnover £4.889 billion (2019) Google turnover £160.74 billion (2018)
Yeah they're comparable! 😂
Google has 1.5 billion global users.
BBC and Google are comparable in the same way as Liverpool and Tranmere Rovers are comparable.
The former Commons Speaker John Bercow has described parliamentary staff members who allege that he bullied people as “snobs and bigots”, and claimed he is the victim of a concerted campaign to destroy his reputation.
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.
Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.
Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
There has been quite a lot of criticism of these people by many commentators who have pointed out their wacky and vile views. Unfortunately Labour MPs have done nothing effective about it. Frankly, they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The voters sent them a message in December and one hopes that a new sensible Labour leader will sack all these ghastly people the minute they’re elected.
We shall have to wait more interminable weeks to see if they do.
Did not the last Labour leader hold the same view? Corbyn has been mainstream for years now, given how in sync he was with Labour memebrs on most things.
The former Commons Speaker John Bercow has described parliamentary staff members who allege that he bullied people as “snobs and bigots”, and claimed he is the victim of a concerted campaign to destroy his reputation.
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
No, we don’t
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?
We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.
Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?
Ah, thats a shame. I'd hoped the refit would get rid of the rattling.
I can sleep through pretty much anything, on pretty much anything (too many nights on mates' floors during my twenties, and in hotels all around the UK and Europe in my thirties). I find it almost impossible to sleep on the Cali sleeper.
I'm told the seats are pretty good actually - less to rattle within a carriage than a cabin.
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.
Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.
Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
You could say so - it was otherwise known as a General Election.
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
No, we don’t
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
I have a horrible feeling I know what 'cut of the stone' probably is but some of those are a mystery.
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
No, we don’t
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
Crappy Beeb dramas: Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English A Christmas Carol Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)
I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.
Really? Or did you just enjoy how much the 'gammon' tendency was infuriated by it? I think the comical miscasting of John Malkovich and the leaden Brexit references covered up the fundamental weakness of the adaptation. Spoiler ahead. The whole point of Christie's story was that the grandiose set of crimes ended up being a cover for an essentially venal and conventional murder for financial gain. It is a statement about the banality of evil. It wasn't that the silly fart of a writer who perpetrated the adaptation had no reverence for the source material - she had no understanding of it.
I enjoyed it because I like late-period John Malkovich - see also "The New Pope" - and I'm a sucker for languid period detective dramas with good lighting. This opinion was formed during the program without knowledge of the gammontariat, as oddly I like the programs I like without tying myself up in knots - see also "Mrs Brown's Boys" and "Dracula". I was hoping for another one this Xmas but the gods of BBC did not smile on me...
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
Yes. But potentially only20's.
No, we don’t
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
What is Rising of the Light? 98 died.
Saw speculation that it's some kind of respiratory disease, as 'lights' is a term used in relation to offal which is lungs, which I'd never heard.
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
No, we don’t
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
What is Rising of the Light? 98 died.
Early electrician was a bitch of a job.
Especially when they only had static to work with.....
If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.
Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.
The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.
There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.
I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.
Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
BBC should be limited to salaries of comparable media companies with global reach, like Google.
BBC is comparable to Google 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You're probably being serious rather than sarcastic too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
LOL!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
BBC is comparable to part of Google (YouTube). They both spend tons of money to make the good things everyone likes, and don't make a lot of money. It's not comparable to DWP or a motor tax office that way.
BBC turnover £4.889 billion (2019) Google turnover £160.74 billion (2018)
Yeah they're comparable! 😂
Google has 1.5 billion global users.
BBC and Google are comparable in the same way as Liverpool and Tranmere Rovers are comparable.
YouTube around $15bn.
And how much of that is voluntarily transactions, how much is taken by threat of imprisonment if you don't pay them?
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.
Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.
Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
There has been quite a lot of criticism of these people by many commentators who have pointed out their wacky and vile views. Unfortunately Labour MPs have done nothing effective about it. Frankly, they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The voters sent them a message in December and one hopes that a new sensible Labour leader will sack all these ghastly people the minute they’re elected.
We shall have to wait more interminable weeks to see if they do.
I wouldn't hold my breath. And although I do appreciate the point you just made, it still appears that the far left is - unfathomably - playing on easy mode when it comes to the toleration of their views while they occupy prominent positions in Left politics and media. Let's have - no laughing at the back, please - a level playing field here: either anything goes in both the major parties, or both parties are held to the same strict standard.
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
No, we don’t
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
What is Rising of the Light? 98 died.
From memory so I could be wrong I believe that's a term they used for lung issues like bronchitis.
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
No, we don’t
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.
Don't be silly, of course if you extend life you increase the time available for illnesses to happen, and as almost all illnesses happen more the older you get, the increase is greater than the extension itself. Yes, modern diet and pollution certainly also contribute to the disease burden, but we aren't going to live forever by adopting a Paleolithic diet or whatever it is you advocate.
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
No, we don’t
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
I have a horrible feeling I know what 'cut of the stone' probably is but some of those are a mystery.
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
No, we don’t
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
What is Rising of the Light? 98 died.
86 from "surfet". Mr Creosote was the last of a long line......
I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.
Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.
The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.
Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
The last series of Yes Prime Minister was married by Paul Eddington's health, as the treatment for his (eventually fatal) cancer weakened him. If you look at his scenes, he is mostly sitting down and his lines are limited to reactions to Nigel Hawthorne's monologues. Since he was very good at both it wasn't a problem but it's still sad to see in retrospect.
If you ever have time look up the interview he gave before his death. He's hairless and obviously physically impaired but still sharp and hie answers reveal a gentle man and a gentleman. I was sad to see him die.
I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.
Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.
The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.
Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
The last series of Yes Prime Minister was married by Paul Eddington's health, as the treatment for his (eventually fatal) cancer weakened him. If you look at his scenes, he is mostly sitting down and his lines are limited to reactions to Nigel Hawthorne's monologues. Since he was very good at both it wasn't a problem but it's still sad to see in retrospect.
If you ever have time look up the interview he gave before his death. He's hairless and obviously physically impaired but still sharp and hie answers reveal a gentle man and a gentleman. I was sad to see him die.
I didn't know that. Puts a very different light on the show.
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.
Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.
Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
There has been quite a lot of criticism of these people by many commentators who have pointed out their wacky and vile views. Unfortunately Labour MPs have done nothing effective about it. Frankly, they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The voters sent them a message in December and one hopes that a new sensible Labour leader will sack all these ghastly people the minute they’re elected.
We shall have to wait more interminable weeks to see if they do.
I wouldn't hold my breath. And although I do appreciate the point you just made, it still appears that the far left is - unfathomably - playing on easy mode when it comes to the toleration of their views while they occupy prominent positions in Left politics and media. Let's have - no laughing at the back, please - a level playing field here: either anything goes in both the major parties, or both parties are held to the same strict standard.
I do agree that there is a tolerance of far Left views which would not be generally extended to someone with Fascist views. See, for instance, the praising of Hobsbawm despite his apologism for the mass murders and other cruelties of the Soviet system.
Why is an interesting debate - but for another time. Or without me, anyway. Am off to bed.
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.
Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.
Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
There has been quite a lot of criticism of these people by many commentators who have pointed out their wacky and vile views. Unfortunately Labour MPs have done nothing effective about it. Frankly, they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The voters sent them a message in December and one hopes that a new sensible Labour leader will sack all these ghastly people the minute they’re elected.
We shall have to wait more interminable weeks to see if they do.
I wouldn't hold my breath. And although I do appreciate the point you just made, it still appears that the far left is - unfathomably - playing on easy mode when it comes to the toleration of their views while they occupy prominent positions in Left politics and media. Let's have - no laughing at the back, please - a level playing field here: either anything goes in both the major parties, or both parties are held to the same strict standard.
I do agree that there is a tolerance of far Left views which would not be generally extended to someone with Fascist views. See, for instance, the praising of Hobsbawm despite his apologism for the mass murders and other cruelties of the Soviet system.
Why is an interesting debate - but for another time. Or without me, anyway. Am off to bed.
I look forward to it - I've always genuinely wanted to know the answer! Good night.
They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.
Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites
Cheers - 275 episodes Friends - 236 episodes The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes Seinfeld - 180 episodes Home Improvement - 204 episodes
Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
I'd add Curb Your Enthusiasm and Modern Family as two I like a lot, Parks and Recreation is good as well. A lot of people like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
America seems to be able to produce good long-running comedy shows in a way we simply don't.
I forgot Frasier. That was great.
Ally Mcbeal was written by one person interestingly.
Survivors (the Seventies British drama) was wholly written by one person, Terry Nation. Only Fools and Horses was entirely John Sullivan's baby. Downton Abbey was nearly entirely written by Julian Fellows, with a few exceptions. Ditto Babylon Five and J Michael Straczynski.
'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.
Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.
Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
There has been quite a lot of criticism of these people by many commentators who have pointed out their wacky and vile views. Unfortunately Labour MPs have done nothing effective about it. Frankly, they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.
The voters sent them a message in December and one hopes that a new sensible Labour leader will sack all these ghastly people the minute they’re elected.
We shall have to wait more interminable weeks to see if they do.
I wouldn't hold my breath. And although I do appreciate the point you just made, it still appears that the far left is - unfathomably - playing on easy mode when it comes to the toleration of their views while they occupy prominent positions in Left politics and media. Let's have - no laughing at the back, please - a level playing field here: either anything goes in both the major parties, or both parties are held to the same strict standard.
I do agree that there is a tolerance of far Left views which would not be generally extended to someone with Fascist views. See, for instance, the praising of Hobsbawm despite his apologism for the mass murders and other cruelties of the Soviet system.
Why is an interesting debate - but for another time. Or without me, anyway. Am off to bed.
They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.
Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites
Cheers - 275 episodes Friends - 236 episodes The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes Seinfeld - 180 episodes Home Improvement - 204 episodes
Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
I'd add Curb Your Enthusiasm and Modern Family as two I like a lot, Parks and Recreation is good as well. A lot of people like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
America seems to be able to produce good long-running comedy shows in a way we simply don't.
I forgot Frasier. That was great.
Ally Mcbeal was written by one person interestingly.
Survivors (the Seventies British drama) was wholly written by one person, Terry Nation. Only Fools and Horses was entirely John Sullivan's baby. Downton Abbey was nearly entirely written by Julian Fellows, with a few exceptions. Ditto Babylon Five and J Michael Straczynski.
Only Fools & Horses... doubt there’s one episode from the first 6-7 series that could be shown on prime time tv now without some censorship
They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.
Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites
Cheers - 275 episodes Friends - 236 episodes The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes Seinfeld - 180 episodes Home Improvement - 204 episodes
Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
In terms of the "hit" comedies of the past 20 years in the UK that everybody knows, again very few episodes. Phoenix Nights had what 12 in total, the Office about the same? Inbetweeners same.
Gavin and Stacey ~ 20 Thick of It ~ 20 IT Crowd ~ 20
The rule of thumb in the US for long term syndication is to reach 100 episodes of a show. If you can make it to about that, your show will be sold and resold for many many years to come.
Only Fools and Horses continues to this day to keep getting aired as it had more like 70 episodes.
Crappy Beeb dramas: Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English A Christmas Carol Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)
I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.
"Stewardess? Oh, stewardess? What is the in-flight movie today?"
"On any other day, that might seem strange."
"Have you lost your mind???" "Well, according to my last psych report...yes"
They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.
Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites
Cheers - 275 episodes Friends - 236 episodes The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes Seinfeld - 180 episodes Home Improvement - 204 episodes
Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
I'd add Curb Your Enthusiasm and Modern Family as two I like a lot, Parks and Recreation is good as well. A lot of people like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
America seems to be able to produce good long-running comedy shows in a way we simply don't.
I forgot Frasier. That was great.
Ally Mcbeal was written by one person interestingly.
Survivors (the Seventies British drama) was wholly written by one person, Terry Nation. Only Fools and Horses was entirely John Sullivan's baby. Downton Abbey was nearly entirely written by Julian Fellows, with a few exceptions. Ditto Babylon Five and J Michael Straczynski.
...and of course Aaron Sorkin wrote the first four seasons of The West Wing before he decided being a drug user was better than being a functioning human being.
I have a horrible feeling I know what 'cut of the stone' probably is but some of those are a mystery.
Removing bladder stone, I think.
Yep. Samuel Pepys, whose portrait I have adopted for my avatar, was one who underwent the operation and survived, cured of the excruciating pain. He celebrated the anniversary every year.
Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.
I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.
The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.
I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
No, we don’t
Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
Sanders is going to run away with the nomination if the caucus plays out anything like that. Then again, we did have that poll showing err Steyer leading earlier. So who knows
I have a horrible feeling I know what 'cut of the stone' probably is but some of those are a mystery.
Removing bladder stone, I think.
Yep. Samuel Pepys, whose portrait I have adopted for my avatar, was one who underwent the operation and survived, cured of the excruciating pain. He celebrated the anniversary every year.
They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.
Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites
Cheers - 275 episodes Friends - 236 episodes The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes Seinfeld - 180 episodes Home Improvement - 204 episodes
Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
I'd add Curb Your Enthusiasm and Modern Family as two I like a lot, Parks and Recreation is good as well. A lot of people like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
America seems to be able to produce good long-running comedy shows in a way we simply don't.
I forgot Frasier. That was great.
Ally Mcbeal was written by one person interestingly.
Survivors (the Seventies British drama) was wholly written by one person, Terry Nation. Only Fools and Horses was entirely John Sullivan's baby. Downton Abbey was nearly entirely written by Julian Fellows, with a few exceptions. Ditto Babylon Five and J Michael Straczynski.
Only Fools & Horses... doubt there’s one episode from the first 6-7 series that could be shown on prime time tv now without some censorship
I'm trying to remember them. I can vaguely remember the ones with Grandad before he died and was replaced by Uncle Albert. But the memories are overlayed with the later ones with Cassandra and Raquel. I remember bits like the bit with the shotgun, and the one with the candleabras. It was good for a long while but fell off towards the end: definitely after the one where they find the watch and get rich
Remember what I was saying a few threads back, about how British comedy used to be about people trapped in circumstances they were trying to get out of? Only Fools and Horses was one of the good ones in that tradition, and there's a lot of competition in that category. Then round about Extras series two it changed, and now it's all rich people whining or culture war stuff...
Remember what I was saying a few threads back, about how British comedy used to be about people trapped in circumstances they were trying to get out of? Only Fools and Horses was one of the good ones in that tradition, and there's a lot of competition in that category. Then round about Extras series two it changed, and now it's all rich people whining or culture war stuff...
Don't forget comedy panel shows. Sure we have had them for a long time, but they really just became pretty much the entire comedy offering for quite a while.
The EU does not specifically prevent dredging, neither does it recommend dredging. Dredging is allowed in the UK although the four environmental regulators prefer not to do so in order to protect wildlife.
"All this stupid little country has to do is stand in line and do what it is told for one miserable day, but can it do that? My fragrant French arse it can't!"
Comments
You're probably being serious rather than sarcastic too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
LOL!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.
Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?
If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZnsZeR6gD8
Was shown on BBC4 a few years ago.
And it’s not “the” standard. It’s my standard.
I'd like him to use his influence to allow those on the right the same freedom as the left has to do off-the-wall thinking without losing their careers.
Not as bad as the laughably titled Acropolis Express in the early eighties mind you!
https://twitter.com/MatthewdAncona/status/1229531309422325778
So anti-semitism on the left and eugenics on the right. Mmmmm - lovely....
It often seems to me that the desire not to have “both hands tied behind” your backs actually means not having to face any criticism or challenge. Well, tough. Corbyn’s Labour got it with both barrels over his nonsense - both from commentators and voters - and so will - and should - your side when it does the same.
The master race breeding is not a problem, just the feckless underclass.
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1229519704206856194
Google turnover £160.74 billion (2018)
Yeah they're comparable! 😂
Google has 1.5 billion global users.
BBC and Google are comparable in the same way as Liverpool and Tranmere Rovers are comparable.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/17/john-bercow-says-bullying-accusers-are-snobs-and-bigots
Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
https://twitter.com/victoriapeckham/status/1229476741594439680?s=21
“The rumours relate to Ms Sturgeon’s private life, but details cannot be disclosed for legal reasons.“
Can we please get back to trying to sort out the economy or climate change or early years education?
The voters sent them a message in December and one hopes that a new sensible Labour leader will sack all these ghastly people the minute they’re elected.
We shall have to wait more interminable weeks to see if they do.
In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
I can sleep through pretty much anything, on pretty much anything (too many nights on mates' floors during my twenties, and in hotels all around the UK and Europe in my thirties). I find it almost impossible to sleep on the Cali sleeper.
I'm told the seats are pretty good actually - less to rattle within a carriage than a cabin.
Plus getting scientific and biological facts right matters. Talking scientific nonsense is as bad and dangerous as the anti-vaccine nonsense.
Agree with you on the rest.
Especially when they only had static to work with.....
If you ever have time look up the interview he gave before his death. He's hairless and obviously physically impaired but still sharp and hie answers reveal a gentle man and a gentleman. I was sad to see him die.
Why is an interesting debate - but for another time. Or without me, anyway. Am off to bed.
How lucky we all are to live in this country at this time.
Gavin and Stacey ~ 20
Thick of It ~ 20
IT Crowd ~ 20
The rule of thumb in the US for long term syndication is to reach 100 episodes of a show. If you can make it to about that, your show will be sold and resold for many many years to come.
Only Fools and Horses continues to this day to keep getting aired as it had more like 70 episodes.
"Well, according to my last psych report...yes"
*Funding has been agreed until 2027 already as I believe, so the future of Auntie is really an issue for the Parliament after this one
Remember the time the CoTE resigned and the budget got delayed ?
Nah Eugenics and the BBC - wibble wibble !
https://twitter.com/beryl1946/status/1229118796125933568?s=20
Steve Bannon is available I believe.
Remember what I was saying a few threads back, about how British comedy used to be about people trapped in circumstances they were trying to get out of? Only Fools and Horses was one of the good ones in that tradition, and there's a lot of competition in that category. Then round about Extras series two it changed, and now it's all rich people whining or culture war stuff...