I am one of the few people outside NZ that loathes Jacinda Ardern. She has great PR, but she’s an inexperienced nitwit.
She’s just done something fabulous though, which is to take a 20% pay cut, along with the rest of her Cabinet.
I know this is just a symbol, but it is a powerful one that we are “in this together”.
What chances of Boris et al following suit?
I'm no fan of silly virtue-signalling, so hopefully not
Gordon Brown did that in 2010 ... his last action after losing the GE. What a shit that man is.
Is that right? iirc Brown took the cut before the election but did not announce it (so hardly virtue-signalling). That the millionaire Cameron complained about it, despite having promised to do the same, did not show him in a favourable light.
The Brown cut took effect after his last payslip went through. He did announce it as well.
As i thought.. the action of a first class shit.
Compare with what John Major did - there is a reason he was (and is) personally liked across parties.
Are there any charts showing deaths PER MILLION of the population for the countries?
Worldometers has the data - but beware, as we're seeing in the UK what the data is varies between countries & whether deaths outside hospitals are included or not (let alone diagnosed):
The BBC needs a kick up the arse. It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.
But scrap the BBC? Fuck off. It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.
I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.
Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.
This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.
Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.
Next.
If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.
Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?
I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.
Yes.
Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.
See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.
The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.
You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.
“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”. Just pure selfishness.
Au contraire. The world is overpopulated as it is, that I'm expected to subsidise other people's life choices in this way is to me the equivalent forcing a teetotaler to subsidise the nation's public houses.
Is James Bond that franchise that is never as good as it never was?
A bit like Dr Who*, for spies...
*Dr Who has reappeared in BBC iPlayer archive section with the first modern series.
It’s also on Netflix.
Er... So you don't have to accept the free version, you can pay a subscription to watch it? Sounds great!
Which versions free in your eyes?
The BBC costs far, far more than Netflix. If you're on a tight budget then getting Netflix is much cheaper as well as much better value for money. The BBC is a luxury more than Netflix.
It is true on the face of it that a Netflix subscription is cheaper than a BBC license, but you need to compare like with like.
And what is like for like?
Like for like they are both TV subscription services and the reality is the BBC is the more expensive of the two. There is a reason ever increasing numbers of people, especially young people on a budget, are abandoning the BBC and choosing Netflix and other budget-friendly alternatives.
For someone to refer to the BBC as "free" is either naive or ignorant.
I am all for a voluntary BBC subscription service but you have to look at the BBC's constituent parts:
1) News 2) Drama 3) Comedy 4) Children's programming 5) Sport 6) Podcasts 7) Weather 8) Regional TV 9) Regional radio 10) Quiz shows 11) Gardening shows 12) BBC CYMRU 13) BBC Scotland 14) BBC Northern Ireland 15) Films 16) Er... 17) That's probably not it.
And then make a comparison. No point just saying, well Netflix has excellent drama and therefore it's worth as much as the BBC.
Do you think Netflix is just drama?
BBC is definitely better at 1 - but ever increasing amounts of people get their News from neither.
Netflix is much better than the BBC at 2, 3, 4 and 15
5 the BBC is better than Netflix but much worse than rivals that care for Sport (if you care for sport you'd be looking at other options)
Weather there are plenty of great websites to visit to get weather info - not sure why you need a TV to do that.
I couldn't care less about 6 through to 14 so couldn't comment on them.
Well exactly. And your priorities will be different to other people. If you differentiated to determine the minimum, you might find that in total, people are happy with what it currently is.
If you would pay, say, £4.99/month for 1, then others would pay £4.99/month each for 2, 4, and 8. Pretty soon you are at £14.58/month for the lot.
With a hell of a lot less hassle, frankly.
Except you don't get charged £4.99 for any of them individually.
Both subscription services offer a package and let people decide which package they want. I pay for many subscription services - Netflix, Sky, BBC, Disney+ and find BBC to be the least value of the lot costing far more than Netflix or Disney and nearly as much as Sky. But I can't have Sky without a Licence Fee which is a disgrace in 2020.
But this started because someone terms the BBC as free. Its not, its more expensive was my point. If I was on a budget I'd drop Sky and the Licence Fee before I dropped Netflix or Disney.
Just out of interest what would be your "go to" smartphone/internet news service? And what radio station would you listen to for news?
Radio I rarely listen to. If I want to listen to music I've got a Google Play music subscription service* which I find better than any radio station. If I must listen to the radio its normally Heart or any other commercial FM radio station playing decent music.
News - politicalbetting.com is my go to site. . I do use the BBC News website and many other websites too, but there's no subscription required to use that.
* Also a YouTube subscription service so no ads on YouTube. More for kids benefit than mine. Also forgot to mention Amazon Prime, rarely use it for TV that's for shopping purposes.
The BBC needs a kick up the arse. It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.
But scrap the BBC? Fuck off. It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.
I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.
Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.
This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.
Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.
Next.
If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.
Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?
I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.
Yes.
Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.
See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.
The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.
You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.
“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”. Just pure selfishness.
I have no love for the argument that "I don't use something so I don't see why I should have to pay for it". Sheer libertarian twaddle. People benefit from the BBC in plenty of ways, from weather forecast distribution to enjoying soap operas. It's the key vector for important national news, is the default channel for most radio listeners because it understands its audience. It has a public education role (and produces the best documentaries in the world) which it is good at, and its kids TV has been superb ever since I was a kid.
Funding via a license fee, and having that tied to TV ownership, is part of the reason people apply this argument to the BBC more than other public services. The funding should be brought into general taxation.
The fact is for those under 45 Covid 19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu, once the peak has passed the focus should be on gettimg them back to school, college and work as soon as possible, using mass testing to try and keep the spread under control and still keeping prudent social distancing.
Then ultimately the focus should shift to just keeping those over 70 who are most at risk indoors with lockdown ended but the advice to them being to stay indoors as much as possible until a vaccine is found or the virus dies out.
Note that one seventh of all deaths for ages 15-44 in the week ending 3rd April 2020 were down as COVID-19 deaths.
People aged 15 to 44 die from seasonal flu too but barely any of them die at all so no surprise there.
The fact remains the death rate for under 45s is around 0.5% or less from Covid 19 so no higher than seasonal flu really and the focus must therefore be on getting them to school, college or work as soon as possible once the peak has passed
The BBC needs a kick up the arse. It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.
But scrap the BBC? Fuck off. It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.
I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.
Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.
This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.
Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.
Next.
If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.
Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?
I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.
Yes.
Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.
See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.
The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.
You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.
“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”. Just pure selfishness.
Well it's a benefit to the country that kids are educated - even if they're not mine. Is it a benefit to the country that other people get to watch Eastenders?
But that's not the point. The point is that everyone has to pay for the BBC whether they want it or not. It's as if we all had to pay an annual fee to Sainsburys even though we could choose to shop at any one of a number of other supermarkets.
I could perhaps buy the argument for BBC radio being paid for out of taxation, if only because subscription radio is very difficult to do. But there is nothing else that they do that other providers don't do better and more cheaply.
The BBC needs a kick up the arse. It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.
But scrap the BBC? Fuck off. It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.
I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.
Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.
This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.
Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.
Next.
If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.
Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?
I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.
Yes.
Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.
See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.
The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.
You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.
“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”. Just pure selfishness.
I have no love for the argument that "I don't use something so I don't see why I should have to pay for it". Sheer libertarian twaddle. People benefit from the BBC in plenty of ways, from weather forecast distribution to enjoying soap operas. It's the key vector for important national news, is the default channel for most radio listeners because it understands its audience. It has a public education role (and produces the best documentaries in the world) which it is good at, and its kids TV has been superb ever since I was a kid.
There is a world of difference between educating our children which helps the country and people being able to enjoy master chef or what it is called.
Educational films are better done by youtube Weather you can get direct from any number of weather forecasters without needing some overdressed presenter News there are plenty of source Best documentaries in the world? opinion sorry about the only thing I rate is some of the wildlife stuff and that is usually made by third parties in any case. Kids tv is available widely on netflix, prime, disney
There is nothing the bbc does that is not done better elsewhere
"The most secure bio-labs routinely make errors that could cause a global pandemic & are about to re-start experiments on pathogens engineered to make them mammalian-airborne-transmissible"
Boris will do what he was always going to do - announce success knowing that his press would back him. The fundamental difference between the May deal and the Johnson deal was that having said "no British government would put a border down the Irish Sea" he put a border down the Irish Sea. That he and his ministers have since denied they have done so doesn't change the reality.
So the final Brexit deal will be the same. The utter lack of any movement on creating the physical, digital and human resource needed for no deal with the insistence that we will have a deal reveals the nature of the deal: alignment. We will remain entirely aligned with the EU because we leave ourselves no other options. Boris will declare that we are not aligned, the media will repeat it, and anyone saying "but I can see your cock my Emperor" will be dismissed as another remoaner.
So in 2021 when we pass through borders the signs will be EU+EEA+CH+UK. Not that anyone will have a problem getting through the UK border - we aren't even asking people coming in if they are in during a pandemic, so the idea that we will be stopping people next year and interviewing them about what they are doing is absurd.
The Prof seems to have decided for the government.
Professor Neil Ferguson, whose modelling has guided Downing Street’s crisis strategy, this morning told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that when the UK lockdown does eventually end, social distancing measures are likely to remain in place “indefinitely” until a coronavirus vaccine can be rolled out.
Ferguson warned that it would not be possible to relax the lockdown until a significant infrastructure was in place.
He said the UK’s ability to come out of lockdown would “depend on how quickly case numbers go down”. But it would also require an emphasis on scaling up testing and contact tracing, because if measures were relaxed without a strong plan in place there was too much risk of a resurgence in cases.
Ferguson said there were some first signs that social distancing measure in the UK may be working, with trends such as the number of calls to 999, 111 and admissions to hospital beginning to flatten.
But he said more needed to be done to ensure the UK could leave lockdown safety. He called for a “command and control centre”, and suggested that any tracing provided by mobile phone apps would have to be supplemented by a “small army” of people testing and tracing.
“I would like to see action accelerated, decisions need to be accelerated and real progress made,” he said....
Another three weeks, at least.
You cannot say social distancing measures will apply until something that does not exist, and might never exist, is rolled out. I would like someone to ask how long we are expected to wait for a vaccine and at what point we assume one is not viable.
Ferguson must understand that this situation is now bigger than an academic discussion in his department's seminar room. Nothing can now be ruled in or ruled out. All options are open to consideration including reducing social distancing restrictions.
The situation is being managed a day at a time. Social distancing measures may have to be relaxed in the foreseeable future depending on the overall situation. Sweden has controlled the epidemic with half the level of cases per million of population that we have with less social distancing and economic disruption. Ferguson should produce his evidence that social distancing works, and if he has none why should he demand that the government follow his suggestions?
The BBC needs a kick up the arse. It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.
But scrap the BBC? Fuck off. It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.
I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.
Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.
This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.
Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.
Next.
If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.
Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?
I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.
Yes.
Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.
See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.
The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.
You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.
“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”. Just pure selfishness.
I have no love for the argument that "I don't use something so I don't see why I should have to pay for it". Sheer libertarian twaddle. People benefit from the BBC in plenty of ways, from weather forecast distribution to enjoying soap operas. It's the key vector for important national news, is the default channel for most radio listeners because it understands its audience. It has a public education role (and produces the best documentaries in the world) which it is good at, and its kids TV has been superb ever since I was a kid.
Funding via a license fee, and having that tied to TV ownership, is part of the reason people apply this argument to the BBC more than other public services. The funding should be brought into general taxation.
Give me one good reason please why absolute dross the BBC outputs like Eastenders or Homes Under the Hammer or whatever other crap they fill the day with should be funded via taxes. What nonsense.
News maybe. Things that serve a public service function. That is not what the BBC does though most of the time.
The BBC needs a kick up the arse. It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.
But scrap the BBC? Fuck off. It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.
I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.
Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.
This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.
Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.
Next.
If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.
Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?
I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.
Yes.
Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.
See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.
The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.
You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.
“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”. Just pure selfishness.
I have no love for the argument that "I don't use something so I don't see why I should have to pay for it". Sheer libertarian twaddle. People benefit from the BBC in plenty of ways, from weather forecast distribution to enjoying soap operas. It's the key vector for important national news, is the default channel for most radio listeners because it understands its audience. It has a public education role (and produces the best documentaries in the world) which it is good at, and its kids TV has been superb ever since I was a kid.
There is a world of difference between educating our children which helps the country and people being able to enjoy master chef or what it is called.
Educational films are better done by youtube Weather you can get direct from any number of weather forecasters without needing some overdressed presenter News there are plenty of source Best documentaries in the world? opinion sorry about the only thing I rate is some of the wildlife stuff and that is usually made by third parties in any case. Kids tv is available widely on netflix, prime, disney
There is nothing the bbc does that is not done better elsewhere
If only there was some way to discriminate - to not give the benefit of services to those who don't want them.
Some years back, there was a hilarious exchange on Canadian TV - a Canadian enviro-politician type was ranting about how terrible US anti-missile defines was for world peace, and how Canada would be dragged into it against its will etc.
The American general who was another guest, mildly remarked that wasn't so - if Canada didn't want to take part, the US would set the Keep-Out-Zone (the geographic area the system would defend) to the US only.
Which sparked off a rant about how evil that would be.....
“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”. Just pure selfishness.
Devil's advocate: why shouldn't parents who can afford it pay for their children's education? (they pay for their food and clothing).
Two reasons. Firstly, it's easier to get buy-in for a benefit when it is universal from people who have more political influence. If you're a modestly wealthy middle-class person in the home counties who can send their kids to a well-run state school that directly benefits your kids and your pocket then you're more likely to base your vote on keeping that service good or making it better.
Secondly, universal services have tangible benefits for all but the absolute wealthiest. If you're our middle-class Surreyite then you can spend 40% of your yearly income sending the eldest to Harrow, or you can (optimally) send him to a good local school which will save you a pile of cash you can spend on something else. Poorer families obviously get access to quality education they would not have had otherwise. Wealthy families probably don't benefit since they'll throw money at their kids' education anyway, but given that society as a whole benefits from higher education levels then, well, eh. I'm still keen to give them the option to send their kids to a state school, because even having the option to do so leaves open the possibility of solidarity in the event that some event occurs that prevents them from being able to afford their preferred school.
Funding via a license fee, and having that tied to TV ownership, is part of the reason people apply this argument to the BBC more than other public services. The funding should be brought into general taxation.
So because many people don't think the telly tax is value for money, the government should just hide this problem by handing them several billion pounds of taxpayers cash every year.
The BBC needs a kick up the arse. It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.
But scrap the BBC? Fuck off. It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.
I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.
Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.
This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.
Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.
Next.
If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.
Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?
I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.
Yes.
Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.
See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.
The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.
You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.
“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”. Just pure selfishness.
Well it's a benefit to the country that kids are educated - even if they're not mine. Is it a benefit to the country that other people get to watch Eastenders?
But that's not the point. The point is that everyone has to pay for the BBC whether they want it or not. It's as if we all had to pay an annual fee to Sainsburys even though we could choose to shop at any one of a number of other supermarkets.
I could perhaps buy the argument for BBC radio being paid for out of taxation, if only because subscription radio is very difficult to do. But there is nothing else that they do that other providers don't do better and more cheaply.
Actually the point the BBC lovers tend to forget is that not everyone has to pay for one nowadays and ever increasing numbers of people choose not to.
The BBC's issue is its not that well loved and not that good for a vast and growing number of people. Its actually pretty crap.
"The most secure bio-labs routinely make errors that could cause a global pandemic & are about to re-start experiments on pathogens engineered to make them mammalian-airborne-transmissible"
Astonishingly prescient of the chief wierdo and misfit.
And quite accurate - the CIA joked about the Soviet bio-war (look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopreparat) labs that getting samples was rather easier than they would like.
Little virus incubator hutches thrown up and sold for big dollar as being in close proximity to a train station which lets you pay big dollar to crush into rolling virus incubators to do a job you could largely do at home. Having paid dollar for virus hutch and virus transport you then spend more dollar paying a 10x markup on a coffee and a bagel and something thats very in but not very filling for lunch.
And then it all stops. Your hutch isn't very nice to live in all day every day. Your commute is awful. And the office whilst nice now and then isn't really that great. How many people are going to throw themselves back into that? What we have now is Bad. What so many had then was Bad. We aren't going back to status quo ante. The absurd cost of living where all property costs £stupid because all other property is the same have to stop.
3912 deaths in England and Wales in March involving covid there was at least one pre existing condition prevailing in 91% of cases
Without context that isn't very meaningful. I'll use my dad as an example. He has type 2 diabetes, but so did my grandad and he lived until he was 89. My dad would be included in this stat but the diabetes doesn't exactly have a huge effect on his every day life or shorten his life significantly.
“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”. Just pure selfishness.
Devil's advocate: why shouldn't parents who can afford it pay for their children's education? (they pay for their food and clothing).
Two reasons. Firstly, it's easier to get buy-in for a benefit when it is universal from people who have more political influence. If you're a modestly wealthy middle-class person in the home counties who can send their kids to a well-run state school that directly benefits your kids and your pocket then you're more likely to base your vote on keeping that service good or making it better.
Secondly, universal services have tangible benefits for all but the absolute wealthiest. If you're our middle-class Surreyite then you can spend 40% of your yearly income sending the eldest to Harrow, or you can (optimally) send him to a good local school which will save you a pile of cash you can spend on something else. Poorer families obviously get access to quality education they would not have had otherwise. Wealthy families probably don't benefit since they'll throw money at their kids' education anyway, but given that society as a whole benefits from higher education levels then, well, eh. I'm still keen to give them the option to send their kids to a state school, because even having the option to do so leaves open the possibility of solidarity in the event that some event occurs that prevents them from being able to afford their preferred school.
Note 'good local state school' middle class parents are hardly going to send their kids to an inadequate or requires improvement state school where the real problems lie
The fact is for those under 45 Covid 19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu, once the peak has passed the focus should be on gettimg them back to school, college and work as soon as possible, using mass testing to try and keep the spread under control and still keeping prudent social distancing.
Then ultimately the focus should shift to just keeping those over 70 who are most at risk indoors with lockdown ended but the advice to them being to stay indoors as much as possible until a vaccine is found or the virus dies out.
Note that one seventh of all deaths for ages 15-44 in the week ending 3rd April 2020 were down as COVID-19 deaths.
People aged 15 to 44 die from seasonal flu too but barely any of them die at all so no surprise there.
The fact remains the death rate for under 45s is around 0.5% or less from Covid 19 so no higher than seasonal flu really and the focus must therefore be on getting them to school, college or work as soon as possible once the peak has passed
There's something amiss with this argument, I think. I think it's that while under 45s die from seasonal flu, hardly any of them get it. While lots of them appear to be getting Covid 19. A disease which you are almost certain to get (for that is the case without a vaccine or herd immunity) and which you have a 1 in 200 chance of dying from is something to worry about.
Now, I personally think the death rate will turn out to be lower, as the number of asymptomatic or not-much-symptomatic cases will turn out to be larger (though my expertise in this is no greater than any interested observer). So I do see cause for optimism. But choosing not to worry on the basis of 'only' a 1 in 200 chance of dying seems remarkably cavalier.
Von der Leyen admite que no estaban preparados y pide perdón a Italia: la presidenta de la Comisión Europea, la alemana Úrsula Von der Leyen, ha reconocido que la UE no estaba preparada para la pandemia y ha lamentado la falta de coordinación y solidaridad entre los Estados miembros cuando los primeros casos en Italia alertaron de la llegada de la enfermedad a Europa.
"Es cierto que nadie estaba realmente preparado para esto, pero también es cierto que hubo demasiadas ausencias cuando Italia necesitó ayuda en los primeros momentos", ha dicho en una comparecencia ante el Parlamento europeo.
Von der Leyen cree "de justicia" que la UE pida "perdón de todo corazón" a los italianos y que esa disculpa se traduzca también en un "cambio de actitud".
The BBC needs a kick up the arse. It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.
But scrap the BBC? Fuck off. It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.
I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.
Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.
This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.
Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.
Next.
If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.
Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?
I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.
Yes.
Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.
See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.
The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.
You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.
“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”. Just pure selfishness.
Well it's a benefit to the country that kids are educated - even if they're not mine. Is it a benefit to the country that other people get to watch Eastenders?
But that's not the point. The point is that everyone has to pay for the BBC whether they want it or not. It's as if we all had to pay an annual fee to Sainsburys even though we could choose to shop at any one of a number of other supermarkets.
I could perhaps buy the argument for BBC radio being paid for out of taxation, if only because subscription radio is very difficult to do. But there is nothing else that they do that other providers don't do better and more cheaply.
Actually the point the BBC lovers tend to forget is that not everyone has to pay for one nowadays and ever increasing numbers of people choose not to.
The BBC's issue is its not that well loved and not that good for a vast and growing number of people. Its actually pretty crap.
The biggest problem that the BBChas , going forward, is the indifference of the young. The various attempts at being down with the kids have not worked. Most children seem to regard them as being a bit like Prince Charles attempts at dancing to modern music.
A generation is growing up who don't watch TV channels.
Click to sort by 10th column. San Marino comes out top.
Neither San Marino nor Andorra are in the EU.
However they should be very familiar to the UK's tax-avoiding billionaires and certain backers of political parties who didn't like the sound of the upcoming EU anti-tax avoidance regs ...
Boris will do what he was always going to do - announce success knowing that his press would back him. The fundamental difference between the May deal and the Johnson deal was that having said "no British government would put a border down the Irish Sea" he put a border down the Irish Sea. That he and his ministers have since denied they have done so doesn't change the reality.
So the final Brexit deal will be the same. The utter lack of any movement on creating the physical, digital and human resource needed for no deal with the insistence that we will have a deal reveals the nature of the deal: alignment. We will remain entirely aligned with the EU because we leave ourselves no other options. Boris will declare that we are not aligned, the media will repeat it, and anyone saying "but I can see your cock my Emperor" will be dismissed as another remoaner.
So in 2021 when we pass through borders the signs will be EU+EEA+CH+UK. Not that anyone will have a problem getting through the UK border - we aren't even asking people coming in if they are in during a pandemic, so the idea that we will be stopping people next year and interviewing them about what they are doing is absurd.
Extension until June 2021 to make up for time lost through lockdown might be OK but Leavers will not stomach a longer extension of the transition period without some starting to look to Farage and the Brexit Party again
1. Nice strawman. I'm happy to pay for your kids education. Your bahamain adventure is neither necessary or desirable. Public service broadcasting is.
2. I think the BBC should be funded from general taxation, but ringfenced and chartered properly to ensure its independence. The TV license is regressive in that it's harder for families that can make the best use of its public service aspect (that includes entertainment) to actually pay for it. A subscription is just the TV license but without the breadth of programming that collecting from everyone allows and requires.
3. This is aimed at Phillip and the rest of the "Why must I pay for Eastenders REEEEE" crowd: Entertainment is a public service. You might not like the output, but the Beeb has a requirement to produce programming that a majority enjoy. Eastenders is popular and people like it. For a lot of people, particularly the elderly who may not be able to afford (or even really understand) the insane world of streaming services it is a lifeline that provides them with varied entertainment they can meaningfully engage with. Eastenders is amongst the Beeb's most popular programming. I don't like it especially, but my widowed Grandmother practically lives for it. I don't watch kids TV but the number of "Thank God for CBBC" statuses on FB from child-rearing friends have been rising steadily with my entry into my 30s. I am happy for these things to exist because they provide pleasure, education and good cheer to a huge number of people. Now I'm sure Socky will pop up from the well of unintelligent posts and say "But my holiday does that". However the state spending money on one person to go to the Bahamas is not a good allocation of resources. Spending money on programming that makes the day of ten million people slightly better absolutely is.
Firstly, it's easier to get buy-in for a benefit when it is universal from people who have more political influence.
This is the Gordon Brown defence-of-welfare scam. It's a political rather than practical point, so only appeals to those that want that outcome anyway.
universal services have tangible benefits for all but the absolute wealthiest.
Possibly, but the logical conclusion of that argument is to adopt full-on socialism, where we all wear the state's clothes and live in community dormitories.
The BBC needs a kick up the arse. It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.
But scrap the BBC? Fuck off. It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.
I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.
Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.
This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.
Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.
Next.
If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.
Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?
I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.
Yes.
Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.
See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.
The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.
You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.
I’m afraid many find your view that 99.9% is crap is wrong and they lap up what you call,’crap’ whereas what you think people should be watching is regarded as crap by millions of people.
Boris will do what he was always going to do - announce success knowing that his press would back him. The fundamental difference between the May deal and the Johnson deal was that having said "no British government would put a border down the Irish Sea" he put a border down the Irish Sea. That he and his ministers have since denied they have done so doesn't change the reality.
So the final Brexit deal will be the same. The utter lack of any movement on creating the physical, digital and human resource needed for no deal with the insistence that we will have a deal reveals the nature of the deal: alignment. We will remain entirely aligned with the EU because we leave ourselves no other options. Boris will declare that we are not aligned, the media will repeat it, and anyone saying "but I can see your cock my Emperor" will be dismissed as another remoaner.
So in 2021 when we pass through borders the signs will be EU+EEA+CH+UK. Not that anyone will have a problem getting through the UK border - we aren't even asking people coming in if they are in during a pandemic, so the idea that we will be stopping people next year and interviewing them about what they are doing is absurd.
Extension until June to make up for time lost through lockdown might be OK but Leavers will not stomach a longer extension of the transition period without some starting to look to Farage and the Brexit Party again
"without some starting to look to Farage and the Brexit Party again"
Fine. The next GE is 4 years away. Most people will be sensible and grown up enough to accept there has been a massive, once in a hundred years change in the economic environment.
"The most secure bio-labs routinely make errors that could cause a global pandemic & are about to re-start experiments on pathogens engineered to make them mammalian-airborne-transmissible"
Boris will do what he was always going to do - announce success knowing that his press would back him. The fundamental difference between the May deal and the Johnson deal was that having said "no British government would put a border down the Irish Sea" he put a border down the Irish Sea. That he and his ministers have since denied they have done so doesn't change the reality.
So the final Brexit deal will be the same. The utter lack of any movement on creating the physical, digital and human resource needed for no deal with the insistence that we will have a deal reveals the nature of the deal: alignment. We will remain entirely aligned with the EU because we leave ourselves no other options. Boris will declare that we are not aligned, the media will repeat it, and anyone saying "but I can see your cock my Emperor" will be dismissed as another remoaner.
So in 2021 when we pass through borders the signs will be EU+EEA+CH+UK. Not that anyone will have a problem getting through the UK border - we aren't even asking people coming in if they are in during a pandemic, so the idea that we will be stopping people next year and interviewing them about what they are doing is absurd.
Extension until June to make up for time lost through lockdown might be OK but Leavers will not stomach a longer extension of the transition period without some starting to look to Farage and the Brexit Party again
I could have 910/110 internet here and two gardens (Front and back) as well as a decent home office room setup so I'm hoping my house fares better than average - not that I'm planning to sell it, more for the remortgage in 5 years, want to be over 40% equity at that point.
Is James Bond that franchise that is never as good as it never was?
A bit like Dr Who*, for spies...
*Dr Who has reappeared in BBC iPlayer archive section with the first modern series.
It’s also on Netflix.
Er... So you don't have to accept the free version, you can pay a subscription to watch it? Sounds great!
Which versions free in your eyes?
The BBC costs far, far more than Netflix. If you're on a tight budget then getting Netflix is much cheaper as well as much better value for money. The BBC is a luxury more than Netflix.
It is true on the face of it that a Netflix subscription is cheaper than a BBC license, but you need to compare like with like.
And what is like for like?
Like for like they are both TV subscription services and the reality is the BBC is the more expensive of the two. There is a reason ever increasing numbers of people, especially young people on a budget, are abandoning the BBC and choosing Netflix and other budget-friendly alternatives.
For someone to refer to the BBC as "free" is either naive or ignorant.
I am all for a voluntary BBC subscription service but you have to look at the BBC's constituent parts:
1) News 2) Drama 3) Comedy 4) Children's programming 5) Sport 6) Podcasts 7) Weather 8) Regional TV 9) Regional radio 10) Quiz shows 11) Gardening shows 12) BBC CYMRU 13) BBC Scotland 14) BBC Northern Ireland 15) Films 16) Er... 17) That's probably not it.
And then make a comparison. No point just saying, well Netflix has excellent drama and therefore it's worth as much as the BBC.
Do you think Netflix is just drama?
BBC is definitely better at 1 - but ever increasing amounts of people get their News from neither.
Netflix is much better than the BBC at 2, 3, 4 and 15
5 the BBC is better than Netflix but much worse than rivals that care for Sport (if you care for sport you'd be looking at other options)
Weather there are plenty of great websites to visit to get weather info - not sure why you need a TV to do that.
I couldn't care less about 6 through to 14 so couldn't comment on them.
Well exactly. And your priorities will be different to other people. If you differentiated to determine the minimum, you might find that in total, people are happy with what it currently is.
If you would pay, say, £4.99/month for 1, then others would pay £4.99/month each for 2, 4, and 8. Pretty soon you are at £14.58/month for the lot.
With a hell of a lot less hassle, frankly.
Except you don't get charged £4.99 for any of them individually.
Both subscription services offer a package and let people decide which package they want. I pay for many subscription services - Netflix, Sky, BBC, Disney+ and find BBC to be the least value of the lot costing far more than Netflix or Disney and nearly as much as Sky. But I can't have Sky without a Licence Fee which is a disgrace in 2020.
But this started because someone terms the BBC as free. Its not, its more expensive was my point. If I was on a budget I'd drop Sky and the Licence Fee before I dropped Netflix or Disney.
Just out of interest what would be your "go to" smartphone/internet news service? And what radio station would you listen to for news?
Radio I rarely listen to. If I want to listen to music I've got a Google Play music subscription service* which I find better than any radio station. If I must listen to the radio its normally Heart or any other commercial FM radio station playing decent music.
News - politicalbetting.com is my go to site. . I do use the BBC News website and many other websites too, but there's no subscription required to use that.
* Also a YouTube subscription service so no ads on YouTube. More for kids benefit than mine. Also forgot to mention Amazon Prime, rarely use it for TV that's for shopping purposes.
The BBC needs a kick up the arse. It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.
But scrap the BBC? Fuck off. It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.
I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.
Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.
This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.
Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.
Next.
If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.
Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?
I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.
Yes.
Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.
See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.
The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.
You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.
“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”. Just pure selfishness.
Well it's a benefit to the country that kids are educated - even if they're not mine. Is it a benefit to the country that other people get to watch Eastenders?
But that's not the point. The point is that everyone has to pay for the BBC whether they want it or not. It's as if we all had to pay an annual fee to Sainsburys even though we could choose to shop at any one of a number of other supermarkets.
I could perhaps buy the argument for BBC radio being paid for out of taxation, if only because subscription radio is very difficult to do. But there is nothing else that they do that other providers don't do better and more cheaply.
Actually the point the BBC lovers tend to forget is that not everyone has to pay for one nowadays and ever increasing numbers of people choose not to.
The BBC's issue is its not that well loved and not that good for a vast and growing number of people. Its actually pretty crap.
The biggest problem that the BBChas , going forward, is the indifference of the young. The various attempts at being down with the kids have not worked. Most children seem to regard them as being a bit like Prince Charles attempts at dancing to modern music.
A generation is growing up who don't watch TV channels.
Indeed. I agree 100%. Its an antiquated organisation that hasn't adapted to the times.
The idea that the BBC must be kept for CBBC is the most laughably inept fallacy of all. I wonder how many kids actually watch CBBC? Mine never watch it and that's not because of my choice (my daughter knows how to use the remote). They're aged 3 and 6 and both love YouTube far more than any TV Channel. They can find a plethora of kids programming they love on Netflix or Disney or YouTube, why would they bother with the BBC?
Any talk of General Taxation or whatever is a desperate throw by Cultural Luddites to try and save a failing behemoth just because people are freely choosing alternatives.
Boris will do what he was always going to do - announce success knowing that his press would back him. The fundamental difference between the May deal and the Johnson deal was that having said "no British government would put a border down the Irish Sea" he put a border down the Irish Sea. That he and his ministers have since denied they have done so doesn't change the reality.
So the final Brexit deal will be the same. The utter lack of any movement on creating the physical, digital and human resource needed for no deal with the insistence that we will have a deal reveals the nature of the deal: alignment. We will remain entirely aligned with the EU because we leave ourselves no other options. Boris will declare that we are not aligned, the media will repeat it, and anyone saying "but I can see your cock my Emperor" will be dismissed as another remoaner.
So in 2021 when we pass through borders the signs will be EU+EEA+CH+UK. Not that anyone will have a problem getting through the UK border - we aren't even asking people coming in if they are in during a pandemic, so the idea that we will be stopping people next year and interviewing them about what they are doing is absurd.
Extension until June to make up for time lost through lockdown might be OK but Leavers will not stomach a longer extension of the transition period without some starting to look to Farage and the Brexit Party again
Is James Bond that franchise that is never as good as it never was?
A bit like Dr Who*, for spies...
*Dr Who has reappeared in BBC iPlayer archive section with the first modern series.
It’s also on Netflix.
Er... So you don't have to accept the free version, you can pay a subscription to watch it? Sounds great!
Which versions free in your eyes?
The BBC costs far, far more than Netflix. If you're on a tight budget then getting Netflix is much cheaper as well as much better value for money. The BBC is a luxury more than Netflix.
It is true on the face of it that a Netflix subscription is cheaper than a BBC license, but you need to compare like with like.
And what is like for like?
Like for like they are both TV subscription services and the reality is the BBC is the more expensive of the two. There is a reason ever increasing numbers of people, especially young people on a budget, are abandoning the BBC and choosing Netflix and other budget-friendly alternatives.
For someone to refer to the BBC as "free" is either naive or ignorant.
I am all for a voluntary BBC subscription service but you have to look at the BBC's constituent parts:
1) News 2) Drama 3) Comedy 4) Children's programming 5) Sport 6) Podcasts 7) Weather 8) Regional TV 9) Regional radio 10) Quiz shows 11) Gardening shows 12) BBC CYMRU 13) BBC Scotland 14) BBC Northern Ireland 15) Films 16) Er... 17) That's probably not it.
And then make a comparison. No point just saying, well Netflix has excellent drama and therefore it's worth as much as the BBC.
Do you think Netflix is just drama?
BBC is definitely better at 1 - but ever increasing amounts of people get their News from neither.
Netflix is much better than the BBC at 2, 3, 4 and 15
5 the BBC is better than Netflix but much worse than rivals that care for Sport (if you care for sport you'd be looking at other options)
Weather there are plenty of great websites to visit to get weather info - not sure why you need a TV to do that.
I couldn't care less about 6 through to 14 so couldn't comment on them.
Well exactly. And your priorities will be different to other people. If you differentiated to determine the minimum, you might find that in total, people are happy with what it currently is.
If you would pay, say, £4.99/month for 1, then others would pay £4.99/month each for 2, 4, and 8. Pretty soon you are at £14.58/month for the lot.
With a hell of a lot less hassle, frankly.
Except you don't get charged £4.99 for any of them individually.
Both subscription services offer a package and let people decide which package they want. I pay for many subscription services - Netflix, Sky, BBC, Disney+ and find BBC to be the least value of the lot costing far more than Netflix or Disney and nearly as much as Sky. But I can't have Sky without a Licence Fee which is a disgrace in 2020.
But this started because someone terms the BBC as free. Its not, its more expensive was my point. If I was on a budget I'd drop Sky and the Licence Fee before I dropped Netflix or Disney.
Just out of interest what would be your "go to" smartphone/internet news service? And what radio station would you listen to for news?
Radio I rarely listen to. If I want to listen to music I've got a Google Play music subscription service* which I find better than any radio station. If I must listen to the radio its normally Heart or any other commercial FM radio station playing decent music.
News - politicalbetting.com is my go to site. . I do use the BBC News website and many other websites too, but there's no subscription required to use that.
* Also a YouTube subscription service so no ads on YouTube. More for kids benefit than mine. Also forgot to mention Amazon Prime, rarely use it for TV that's for shopping purposes.
You are missing some stonking mini-series.
On Amazon or the BBC?
There's a plethora of great TV out there nowadays. Even during lockdown more than we can watch. That's the point though isn't it - people can choose now and are choosing, you are never going to convince my generation or those younger (let alone older getting used to it too) that linear programming organisations need saving.
The BBC needs a kick up the arse. It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.
But scrap the BBC? Fuck off. It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.
I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.
Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.
This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.
Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.
Next.
If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.
Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?
I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.
Yes.
Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.
See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.
The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.
You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.
I’m afraid many find your view that 99.9% is crap is wrong and they lap up what you call,’crap’ whereas what you think people should be watching is regarded as crap by millions of people.
1) I haven't suggested anyone watch anything 2) I haven't asked anyone to pay for me to be able to watch what I enjoy unlike the fund the bbc through general taxation crowd
"The most secure bio-labs routinely make errors that could cause a global pandemic & are about to re-start experiments on pathogens engineered to make them mammalian-airborne-transmissible"
The fact is for those under 45 Covid 19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu, once the peak has passed the focus should be on gettimg them back to school, college and work as soon as possible, using mass testing to try and keep the spread under control and still keeping prudent social distancing.
Then ultimately the focus should shift to just keeping those over 70 who are most at risk indoors with lockdown ended but the advice to them being to stay indoors as much as possible until a vaccine is found or the virus dies out.
Note that one seventh of all deaths for ages 15-44 in the week ending 3rd April 2020 were down as COVID-19 deaths.
People aged 15 to 44 die from seasonal flu too but barely any of them die at all so no surprise there.
The fact remains the death rate for under 45s is around 0.5% or less from Covid 19 so no higher than seasonal flu really and the focus must therefore be on getting them to school, college or work as soon as possible once the peak has passed
There's something amiss with this argument, I think. I think it's that while under 45s die from seasonal flu, hardly any of them get it. While lots of them appear to be getting Covid 19. A disease which you are almost certain to get (for that is the case without a vaccine or herd immunity) and which you have a 1 in 200 chance of dying from is something to worry about.
Now, I personally think the death rate will turn out to be lower, as the number of asymptomatic or not-much-symptomatic cases will turn out to be larger (though my expertise in this is no greater than any interested observer). So I do see cause for optimism. But choosing not to worry on the basis of 'only' a 1 in 200 chance of dying seems remarkably cavalier.
Compared to say a 1 in 10 chance of mass unemployment if under 45s do not go back to work once the peak is over a less than 1 in 200 chance of them dying if they catch Covid 19 is less significant, especially if we use mass testing and face masks to reduce the risk of spread
Boris will do what he was always going to do - announce success knowing that his press would back him. The fundamental difference between the May deal and the Johnson deal was that having said "no British government would put a border down the Irish Sea" he put a border down the Irish Sea. That he and his ministers have since denied they have done so doesn't change the reality.
So the final Brexit deal will be the same. The utter lack of any movement on creating the physical, digital and human resource needed for no deal with the insistence that we will have a deal reveals the nature of the deal: alignment. We will remain entirely aligned with the EU because we leave ourselves no other options. Boris will declare that we are not aligned, the media will repeat it, and anyone saying "but I can see your cock my Emperor" will be dismissed as another remoaner.
So in 2021 when we pass through borders the signs will be EU+EEA+CH+UK. Not that anyone will have a problem getting through the UK border - we aren't even asking people coming in if they are in during a pandemic, so the idea that we will be stopping people next year and interviewing them about what they are doing is absurd.
Extension until June to make up for time lost through lockdown might be OK but Leavers will not stomach a longer extension of the transition period without some starting to look to Farage and the Brexit Party again
Doesn't make a lot of difference really does it? The next election isn't until 2024.
True but the transition period will have to have ended by then
Yes by 2024, not by June next year or any other arbitrary date.
Nobody will care about this by next time, whatever the government needs to do it should and I expect will do. In the meantime there's not point point getting obsessed over the sausage, especially while its not getting made right now.
The BBC needs a kick up the arse. It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.
But scrap the BBC? Fuck off. It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.
I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.
Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.
This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.
Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.
Next.
If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.
Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?
I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.
Yes.
Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.
See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.
The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.
You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.
“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”. Just pure selfishness.
Well it's a benefit to the country that kids are educated - even if they're not mine. Is it a benefit to the country that other people get to watch Eastenders?
But that's not the point. The point is that everyone has to pay for the BBC whether they want it or not. It's as if we all had to pay an annual fee to Sainsburys even though we could choose to shop at any one of a number of other supermarkets.
I could perhaps buy the argument for BBC radio being paid for out of taxation, if only because subscription radio is very difficult to do. But there is nothing else that they do that other providers don't do better and more cheaply.
Actually the point the BBC lovers tend to forget is that not everyone has to pay for one nowadays and ever increasing numbers of people choose not to.
The BBC's issue is its not that well loved and not that good for a vast and growing number of people. Its actually pretty crap.
The biggest problem that the BBChas , going forward, is the indifference of the young. The various attempts at being down with the kids have not worked. Most children seem to regard them as being a bit like Prince Charles attempts at dancing to modern music.
A generation is growing up who don't watch TV channels.
Indeed. I agree 100%. Its an antiquated organisation that hasn't adapted to the times.
The idea that the BBC must be kept for CBBC is the most laughably inept fallacy of all. I wonder how many kids actually watch CBBC? Mine never watch it and that's not because of my choice (my daughter knows how to use the remote). They're aged 3 and 6 and both love YouTube far more than any TV Channel. They can find a plethora of kids programming they love on Netflix or Disney or YouTube, why would they bother with the BBC?
Any talk of General Taxation or whatever is a desperate throw by Cultural Luddites to try and save a failing behemoth just because people are freely choosing alternatives.
I find it sad that the BBC didn't grasp the nettle, sort out the international rights for its output going forward and move to encryption/subscription. They deliberately chose to block that route when digital TV was introduced.
If they had, they would be selling BBC TV online, around the world, making a fortune.
Within a decade, broadcasting a TV signal via radio is going to seem like making the radio announcers wear full evening dress...
Found out yesterday that my 19 year old son is self harming. For his generation this is agony. Can't go out. Can't see people. Can't do stuff. Can't even go to college as a distraction. A big fat blank where a future should be. His mum then more in a flap about the risk of him going to uni in September because the virus. For me that will be one of many risks of going to uni including the traditional getting dangerously drunk and waking up in bramble bushes at 3am with no idea where you are or how you got there, have lost your glasses so can't see great and appear to have someone else's hooded top on backwards...
That is very upsetting news. I am so sorry and hope he can get help
Appreciate the comments - the job of the PB community is that we support each other regardless of the other arguments we all enjoy having. He is autistic (such a broad term now that its a spectrum rather than automatic Rain Main) - as is my wife. As I appear to be though undiagnosed (I'm 43, functional and self-aware so whats the point of doing more than the online tests). We're adults with a few decades of life experience under our belts to fall back on. He doesn't, and the support available to him has dropped off because less physical interaction just as the isolation ramps up to never before experienced levels. He's doing social media with his friends. But they do that all the time normally, so its the physical isolation thats the horror not that they can't talk to each other.
He'll be ok. But the "cabin fever" that those of us with a decent house and stuff and ok mental health are suffering is nothing compared to those shut away by themselves with less resilient mental states. Guy rang into James O'Brien yesterday on his "are you alright?" topic and wept down the phone at the impact his living alone was having on him. Yes we need to control the virus. But as with the economic damage the shutdown plus "fuck you" business loans/UC policy implementation is causing, they need to consider what will be left of us as and when this indefinite period of waiting is lifted. They hope for a V-shaped recovery. No chance. We're broken.
I sincerely hope you are right. Best wishes to you and your family. My son is worrying about his 16 (almost 17) year old son. Big problem there is that he has been promised, and was looking forward to, driving lessons on his shortly forthcoming birthday. As you rightly say, social interaction hasn't changed but at that sort of age young people need to be doing more than just interacting 'verbally'. As I say, best of. It's to be hoped that if lockdown is staged it'shis age group that's among the earliest.
"The most secure bio-labs routinely make errors that could cause a global pandemic & are about to re-start experiments on pathogens engineered to make them mammalian-airborne-transmissible"
Astonishingly prescient of the chief wierdo and misfit.
That is indeed truly remarkable.
This bit deserves excerpting
‘Although the institutions of our culture are so amazingly good that they have been able to manage stability in the face of rapid change for hundreds of years, the knowledge of what it takes to keep civilization stable in the face of rapidly increasing knowledge is not very widespread. In fact, severe misconceptions about several aspects of it are common among political leaders, educated people, and society at large. We’re like people on a huge, well-designed submarine, which has all sorts of lifesaving devices built in, who don’t know they’re in a submarine. They think they’re in a motorboat, and they’re going to open all the hatches because they want to have a nicer view.’ David Deutsch, the physicist who extended Alan Turing’s 1936 paper on classical computation to quantum computation.
Boris will do what he was always going to do - announce success knowing that his press would back him. The fundamental difference between the May deal and the Johnson deal was that having said "no British government would put a border down the Irish Sea" he put a border down the Irish Sea. That he and his ministers have since denied they have done so doesn't change the reality.
So the final Brexit deal will be the same. The utter lack of any movement on creating the physical, digital and human resource needed for no deal with the insistence that we will have a deal reveals the nature of the deal: alignment. We will remain entirely aligned with the EU because we leave ourselves no other options. Boris will declare that we are not aligned, the media will repeat it, and anyone saying "but I can see your cock my Emperor" will be dismissed as another remoaner.
So in 2021 when we pass through borders the signs will be EU+EEA+CH+UK. Not that anyone will have a problem getting through the UK border - we aren't even asking people coming in if they are in during a pandemic, so the idea that we will be stopping people next year and interviewing them about what they are doing is absurd.
Extension until June 2021 to make up for time lost through lockdown might be OK but Leavers will not stomach a longer extension of the transition period without some starting to look to Farage and the Brexit Party again
Why do we need an extension to June 21? Not enough time to implement the border down the Irish Sea never mind channel border. The deal we will get is the deal we have, spun magnificently by your good self and the Daily Mail as being nothing of the sort.
The fact is for those under 45 Covid 19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu, once the peak has passed the focus should be on gettimg them back to school, college and work as soon as possible, using mass testing to try and keep the spread under control and still keeping prudent social distancing.
Then ultimately the focus should shift to just keeping those over 70 who are most at risk indoors with lockdown ended but the advice to them being to stay indoors as much as possible until a vaccine is found or the virus dies out.
Note that one seventh of all deaths for ages 15-44 in the week ending 3rd April 2020 were down as COVID-19 deaths.
People aged 15 to 44 die from seasonal flu too but barely any of them die at all so no surprise there.
The fact remains the death rate for under 45s is around 0.5% or less from Covid 19 so no higher than seasonal flu really and the focus must therefore be on getting them to school, college or work as soon as possible once the peak has passed
There's something amiss with this argument, I think. I think it's that while under 45s die from seasonal flu, hardly any of them get it. While lots of them appear to be getting Covid 19. A disease which you are almost certain to get (for that is the case without a vaccine or herd immunity) and which you have a 1 in 200 chance of dying from is something to worry about.
Now, I personally think the death rate will turn out to be lower, as the number of asymptomatic or not-much-symptomatic cases will turn out to be larger (though my expertise in this is no greater than any interested observer). So I do see cause for optimism. But choosing not to worry on the basis of 'only' a 1 in 200 chance of dying seems remarkably cavalier.
Compared to say a 1 in 10 chance of mass unemployment if under 45s do not go back to work once the peak is over a less than 1 in 200 chance of them dying if they catch Covid 19 is less significant, especially if we use mass testing and face masks to reduce the risk of spread
In fact the chances of mass unemployment in those circumstances are probably more than 50%
Boris will do what he was always going to do - announce success knowing that his press would back him. The fundamental difference between the May deal and the Johnson deal was that having said "no British government would put a border down the Irish Sea" he put a border down the Irish Sea. That he and his ministers have since denied they have done so doesn't change the reality.
So the final Brexit deal will be the same. The utter lack of any movement on creating the physical, digital and human resource needed for no deal with the insistence that we will have a deal reveals the nature of the deal: alignment. We will remain entirely aligned with the EU because we leave ourselves no other options. Boris will declare that we are not aligned, the media will repeat it, and anyone saying "but I can see your cock my Emperor" will be dismissed as another remoaner.
So in 2021 when we pass through borders the signs will be EU+EEA+CH+UK. Not that anyone will have a problem getting through the UK border - we aren't even asking people coming in if they are in during a pandemic, so the idea that we will be stopping people next year and interviewing them about what they are doing is absurd.
Extension until June to make up for time lost through lockdown might be OK but Leavers will not stomach a longer extension of the transition period without some starting to look to Farage and the Brexit Party again
"without some starting to look to Farage and the Brexit Party again"
Fine. The next GE is 4 years away. Most people will be sensible and grown up enough to accept there has been a massive, once in a hundred years change in the economic environment.
Oh I forgot the extension to TA is not about what’s best for the economy it’s what’s best for the Tories. Can’t have them voting for someone else can we.
Boris will do what he was always going to do - announce success knowing that his press would back him. The fundamental difference between the May deal and the Johnson deal was that having said "no British government would put a border down the Irish Sea" he put a border down the Irish Sea. That he and his ministers have since denied they have done so doesn't change the reality.
So the final Brexit deal will be the same. The utter lack of any movement on creating the physical, digital and human resource needed for no deal with the insistence that we will have a deal reveals the nature of the deal: alignment. We will remain entirely aligned with the EU because we leave ourselves no other options. Boris will declare that we are not aligned, the media will repeat it, and anyone saying "but I can see your cock my Emperor" will be dismissed as another remoaner.
So in 2021 when we pass through borders the signs will be EU+EEA+CH+UK. Not that anyone will have a problem getting through the UK border - we aren't even asking people coming in if they are in during a pandemic, so the idea that we will be stopping people next year and interviewing them about what they are doing is absurd.
Extension until June 2021 to make up for time lost through lockdown might be OK but Leavers will not stomach a longer extension of the transition period without some starting to look to Farage and the Brexit Party again
Why do we need an extension to June 21? Not enough time to implement the border down the Irish Sea never mind channel border. The deal we will get is the deal we have, spun magnificently by your good self and the Daily Mail as being nothing of the sort.
If no deal agreed past June 21 then we go got No Deal, as most Tory MPs and most Leavers and most Tory voters will demand. For them we cannot have free movement and ECJ jurisdiction continuing indefinitely
1. Nice strawman. I'm happy to pay for your kids education. Your bahamain adventure is neither necessary or desirable. Public service broadcasting is.
2. I think the BBC should be funded from general taxation, but ringfenced and chartered properly to ensure its independence. The TV license is regressive in that it's harder for families that can make the best use of its public service aspect (that includes entertainment) to actually pay for it. A subscription is just the TV license but without the breadth of programming that collecting from everyone allows and requires.
3. This is aimed at Phillip and the rest of the "Why must I pay for Eastenders REEEEE" crowd: Entertainment is a public service. You might not like the output, but the Beeb has a requirement to produce programming that a majority enjoy. Eastenders is popular and people like it. For a lot of people, particularly the elderly who may not be able to afford (or even really understand) the insane world of streaming services it is a lifeline that provides them with varied entertainment they can meaningfully engage with. Eastenders is amongst the Beeb's most popular programming. I don't like it especially, but my widowed Grandmother practically lives for it. I don't watch kids TV but the number of "Thank God for CBBC" statuses on FB from child-rearing friends have been rising steadily with my entry into my 30s. I am happy for these things to exist because they provide pleasure, education and good cheer to a huge number of people. Now I'm sure Socky will pop up from the well of unintelligent posts and say "But my holiday does that". However the state spending money on one person to go to the Bahamas is not a good allocation of resources. Spending money on programming that makes the day of ten million people slightly better absolutely is.
Entertainment is not a public service, it is a freely traded commodity. We live in an era of abundant cheap entertainment and choice. People can and do choose whichever entertainment suits them.
There is nobody who may not be able to afford streaming services considering they are all CHEAPER than the BBC so that's absolute codswallop.
As far as whether Eastenders is amongst the BBC's most popular programming - so f***ing what? Tiger King is amongst Netflix's most popular programming right now. Should Tiger King be paid for out of General Taxation? If people want to pay for Eastenders let them, its a free society. There is absolutely no public service in find out what Phil Mitchell is up to this week. Any more than there is in Hollyoaks or Coronation Street or Holby City or any other drama or soap.
I do have kids and I call bullshit on any "Thank God for CBBC" statuses. CBBC is shit. Kids have an abundant variety of alternatives.
Anyone who thinks "entertainment" is "public service" must have been in a coma for my entire lifetime it seems as if that was ever true its certainly not now.
The fact is for those under 45 Covid 19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu, once the peak has passed the focus should be on gettimg them back to school, college and work as soon as possible, using mass testing to try and keep the spread under control and still keeping prudent social distancing.
Then ultimately the focus should shift to just keeping those over 70 who are most at risk indoors with lockdown ended but the advice to them being to stay indoors as much as possible until a vaccine is found or the virus dies out.
Note that one seventh of all deaths for ages 15-44 in the week ending 3rd April 2020 were down as COVID-19 deaths.
People aged 15 to 44 die from seasonal flu too but barely any of them die at all so no surprise there.
The fact remains the death rate for under 45s is around 0.5% or less from Covid 19 so no higher than seasonal flu really and the focus must therefore be on getting them to school, college or work as soon as possible once the peak has passed
There's something amiss with this argument, I think. I think it's that while under 45s die from seasonal flu, hardly any of them get it. While lots of them appear to be getting Covid 19. A disease which you are almost certain to get (for that is the case without a vaccine or herd immunity) and which you have a 1 in 200 chance of dying from is something to worry about.
Now, I personally think the death rate will turn out to be lower, as the number of asymptomatic or not-much-symptomatic cases will turn out to be larger (though my expertise in this is no greater than any interested observer). So I do see cause for optimism. But choosing not to worry on the basis of 'only' a 1 in 200 chance of dying seems remarkably cavalier.
Compared to say a 1 in 10 chance of mass unemployment if under 45s do not go back to work once the peak is over a less than 1 in 200 chance of them dying if they catch Covid 19 is less significant, especially if we use mass testing and face masks to reduce the risk of spread
I agree 1 in 200 is less significant than 1 in 10. But death is rather more significant than unemployment. AT THESE ODDS, I would choose the higher risk of unemployment. Its not that I'm especially anxious about the 1 in 200 risk of me dying (though I am anxious). I'm more concerned about the certainty of many of those I love dying - and hell, even many of those I don't love. Even to reduce it to cold economics, losing 1 in 200 of the working age population seems something of a negative. And more people will recover from unemployment than recover from death. Now, as I said, I think the odds of dying are overstated at 1 in 200. And I know that many will also die as a result of the depression we are heading towards. And on an emotional level I'm fed up of the lockdown. But to me the argument for ending it doesn't seem particularly clear cut, and a 1 in 200 chance of dying seems pretty unappealing.
Little virus incubator hutches thrown up and sold for big dollar as being in close proximity to a train station which lets you pay big dollar to crush into rolling virus incubators to do a job you could largely do at home. Having paid dollar for virus hutch and virus transport you then spend more dollar paying a 10x markup on a coffee and a bagel and something thats very in but not very filling for lunch.
And then it all stops. Your hutch isn't very nice to live in all day every day. Your commute is awful. And the office whilst nice now and then isn't really that great. How many people are going to throw themselves back into that? What we have now is Bad. What so many had then was Bad. We aren't going back to status quo ante. The absurd cost of living where all property costs £stupid because all other property is the same have to stop.
We're definitely going to be revisiting the consumer (mortgage) debt problem soon.
The BBC needs a kick up the arse. It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.
But scrap the BBC? Fuck off. It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.
I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.
Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.
This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.
Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.
Next.
If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.
Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?
I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.
Yes.
Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.
See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.
The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.
You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.
“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”. Just pure selfishness.
Well it's a benefit to the country that kids are educated - even if they're not mine. Is it a benefit to the country that other people get to watch Eastenders?
But that's not the point. The point is that everyone has to pay for the BBC whether they want it or not. It's as if we all had to pay an annual fee to Sainsburys even though we could choose to shop at any one of a number of other supermarkets.
I could perhaps buy the argument for BBC radio being paid for out of taxation, if only because subscription radio is very difficult to do. But there is nothing else that they do that other providers don't do better and more cheaply.
Actually the point the BBC lovers tend to forget is that not everyone has to pay for one nowadays and ever increasing numbers of people choose not to.
The BBC's issue is its not that well loved and not that good for a vast and growing number of people. Its actually pretty crap.
The biggest problem that the BBChas , going forward, is the indifference of the young. The various attempts at being down with the kids have not worked. Most children seem to regard them as being a bit like Prince Charles attempts at dancing to modern music.
A generation is growing up who don't watch TV channels.
Indeed. I agree 100%. Its an antiquated organisation that hasn't adapted to the times.
The idea that the BBC must be kept for CBBC is the most laughably inept fallacy of all. I wonder how many kids actually watch CBBC? Mine never watch it and that's not because of my choice (my daughter knows how to use the remote). They're aged 3 and 6 and both love YouTube far more than any TV Channel. They can find a plethora of kids programming they love on Netflix or Disney or YouTube, why would they bother with the BBC?
Any talk of General Taxation or whatever is a desperate throw by Cultural Luddites to try and save a failing behemoth just because people are freely choosing alternatives.
I find it sad that the BBC didn't grasp the nettle, sort out the international rights for its output going forward and move to encryption/subscription. They deliberately chose to block that route when digital TV was introduced.
If they had, they would be selling BBC TV online, around the world, making a fortune.
Within a decade, broadcasting a TV signal via radio is going to seem like making the radio announcers wear full evening dress...
Its not too late. If people want the BBC they will pay for it, one way or another.
The problem is growing amounts of people don't want it. Trying to find ever extravagant ways to force people to pay for an entertainment they don't want is nonsense. The simplest solution remains the best - let people who want to pay for it do so while producing something people want to pay for.
I wonder if the government will have the guts and integrity to adopt the only approach to the economic crisis which is both feasible and fair - higher and steeply progressive taxation with a focus on wealth.
If they do I'll be voting Conservative next time, Starmer or no Starmer.
I wonder if the government will have the guts and integrity to adopt the only approach to the economic crisis which is both feasible and fair - higher and steeply progressive taxation with a focus on wealth.
If they do I'll be voting Conservative next time, Starmer or no Starmer.
It’s a thread header with nothing for everyone. That’s why it’s so disliked!
Is James Bond that franchise that is never as good as it never was?
A bit like Dr Who*, for spies...
*Dr Who has reappeared in BBC iPlayer archive section with the first modern series.
It’s also on Netflix.
Er... So you don't have to accept the free version, you can pay a subscription to watch it? Sounds great!
Which versions free in your eyes?
The BBC costs far, far more than Netflix. If you're on a tight budget then getting Netflix is much cheaper as well as much better value for money. The BBC is a luxury more than Netflix.
It is true on the face of it that a Netflix subscription is cheaper than a BBC license, but you need to compare like with like.
And what is like for like?
Like for like they are both TV subscription services and the reality is the BBC is the more expensive of the two. There is a reason ever increasing numbers of people, especially young people on a budget, are abandoning the BBC and choosing Netflix and other budget-friendly alternatives.
For someone to refer to the BBC as "free" is either naive or ignorant.
I am all for a voluntary BBC subscription service but you have to look at the BBC's constituent parts:
1) News 2) Drama 3) Comedy 4) Children's programming 5) Sport 6) Podcasts 7) Weather 8) Regional TV 9) Regional radio 10) Quiz shows 11) Gardening shows 12) BBC CYMRU 13) BBC Scotland 14) BBC Northern Ireland 15) Films 16) Er... 17) That's probably not it.
And then make a comparison. No point just saying, well Netflix has excellent drama and therefore it's worth as much as the BBC.
Do you think Netflix is just drama?
BBC is definitely better at 1 - but ever increasing amounts of people get their News from neither.
Netflix is much better than the BBC at 2, 3, 4 and 15
5 the BBC is better than Netflix but much worse than rivals that care for Sport (if you care for sport you'd be looking at other options)
Weather there are plenty of great websites to visit to get weather info - not sure why you need a TV to do that.
I couldn't care less about 6 through to 14 so couldn't comment on them.
Well exactly. And your priorities will be different to other people. If you differentiated to determine the minimum, you might find that in total, people are happy with what it currently is.
If you would pay, say, £4.99/month for 1, then others would pay £4.99/month each for 2, 4, and 8. Pretty soon you are at £14.58/month for the lot.
With a hell of a lot less hassle, frankly.
Except you don't get charged £4.99 for any of them individually.
Both subscription services offer a package and let people decide which package they want. I pay for many subscription services - Netflix, Sky, BBC, Disney+ and find BBC to be the least value of the lot costing far more than Netflix or Disney and nearly as much as Sky. But I can't have Sky without a Licence Fee which is a disgrace in 2020.
But this started because someone terms the BBC as free. Its not, its more expensive was my point. If I was on a budget I'd drop Sky and the Licence Fee before I dropped Netflix or Disney.
Just out of interest what would be your "go to" smartphone/internet news service? And what radio station would you listen to for news?
Radio I rarely listen to. If I want to listen to music I've got a Google Play music subscription service* which I find better than any radio station. If I must listen to the radio its normally Heart or any other commercial FM radio station playing decent music.
News - politicalbetting.com is my go to site. . I do use the BBC News website and many other websites too, but there's no subscription required to use that.
* Also a YouTube subscription service so no ads on YouTube. More for kids benefit than mine. Also forgot to mention Amazon Prime, rarely use it for TV that's for shopping purposes.
You are missing some stonking mini-series.
On Amazon or the BBC?
There's a plethora of great TV out there nowadays. Even during lockdown more than we can watch. That's the point though isn't it - people can choose now and are choosing, you are never going to convince my generation or those younger (let alone older getting used to it too) that linear programming organisations need saving.
Amazon I was thinking. Not a huge fan of BBC drama - Killing Eve, Doctor Who...meh. But then I'm not the right age demographic for that I suspect.
Amazon has some amazing stuff. Apart from the classics (Wire, Sopranos), it has lesser known series such as The Americans (brilliant), The Man in the High Castle, Modern Family, This Is Us, When They See Us, and Sneaky Pete.
Well worth a mooch around. Everyone has their favourites but it is a universally acknowledged truth that The Wire is the best mini-series ever made.
The fact is for those under 45 Covid 19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu, once the peak has passed the focus should be on gettimg them back to school, college and work as soon as possible, using mass testing to try and keep the spread under control and still keeping prudent social distancing.
Then ultimately the focus should shift to just keeping those over 70 who are most at risk indoors with lockdown ended but the advice to them being to stay indoors as much as possible until a vaccine is found or the virus dies out.
Note that one seventh of all deaths for ages 15-44 in the week ending 3rd April 2020 were down as COVID-19 deaths.
People aged 15 to 44 die from seasonal flu too but barely any of them die at all so no surprise there.
The fact remains the death rate for under 45s is around 0.5% or less from Covid 19 so no higher than seasonal flu really and the focus must therefore be on getting them to school, college or work as soon as possible once the peak has passed
There's something amiss with this argument, I think. I think it's that while under 45s die from seasonal flu, hardly any of them get it. While lots of them appear to be getting Covid 19. A disease which you are almost certain to get (for that is the case without a vaccine or herd immunity) and which you have a 1 in 200 chance of dying from is something to worry about.
Now, I personally think the death rate will turn out to be lower, as the number of asymptomatic or not-much-symptomatic cases will turn out to be larger (though my expertise in this is no greater than any interested observer). So I do see cause for optimism. But choosing not to worry on the basis of 'only' a 1 in 200 chance of dying seems remarkably cavalier.
Compared to say a 1 in 10 chance of mass unemployment if under 45s do not go back to work once the peak is over a less than 1 in 200 chance of them dying if they catch Covid 19 is less significant, especially if we use mass testing and face masks to reduce the risk of spread
I agree 1 in 200 is less significant than 1 in 10. But death is rather more significant than unemployment. AT THESE ODDS, I would choose the higher risk of unemployment. Its not that I'm especially anxious about the 1 in 200 risk of me dying (though I am anxious). I'm more concerned about the certainty of many of those I love dying - and hell, even many of those I don't love. Even to reduce it to cold economics, losing 1 in 200 of the working age population seems something of a negative. And more people will recover from unemployment than recover from death. Now, as I said, I think the odds of dying are overstated at 1 in 200. And I know that many will also die as a result of the depression we are heading towards. And on an emotional level I'm fed up of the lockdown. But to me the argument for ending it doesn't seem particularly clear cut, and a 1 in 200 chance of dying seems pretty unappealing.
Well fine, most of us myself included will not and nor will most Tories and nor will Boris, once the peak has passed the economy must be prioritised and people sent back to work with mass testing and face masks on public transport.
A less than 0.5% chance of dying is no justification for keeping under 45s locked up indefinitely
The BBC needs a kick up the arse. It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.
But scrap the BBC? Fuck off. It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.
I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.
Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.
This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.
Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.
Next.
If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.
Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?
I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.
Yes.
Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.
See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.
The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.
You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.
“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”. Just pure selfishness.
Well it's a benefit to the country that kids are educated - even if they're not mine. Is it a benefit to the country that other people get to watch Eastenders?
But that's not the point. The point is that everyone has to pay for the BBC whether they want it or not. It's as if we all had to pay an annual fee to Sainsburys even though we could choose to shop at any one of a number of other supermarkets.
I could perhaps buy the argument for BBC radio being paid for out of taxation, if only because subscription radio is very difficult to do. But there is nothing else that they do that other providers don't do better and more cheaply.
Actually the point the BBC lovers tend to forget is that not everyone has to pay for one nowadays and ever increasing numbers of people choose not to.
The BBC's issue is its not that well loved and not that good for a vast and growing number of people. Its actually pretty crap.
The biggest problem that the BBChas , going forward, is the indifference of the young. The various attempts at being down with the kids have not worked. Most children seem to regard them as being a bit like Prince Charles attempts at dancing to modern music.
A generation is growing up who don't watch TV channels.
Indeed. I agree 100%. Its an antiquated organisation that hasn't adapted to the times.
The idea that the BBC must be kept for CBBC is the most laughably inept fallacy of all. I wonder how many kids actually watch CBBC? Mine never watch it and that's not because of my choice (my daughter knows how to use the remote). They're aged 3 and 6 and both love YouTube far more than any TV Channel. They can find a plethora of kids programming they love on Netflix or Disney or YouTube, why would they bother with the BBC?
Any talk of General Taxation or whatever is a desperate throw by Cultural Luddites to try and save a failing behemoth just because people are freely choosing alternatives.
Yes, I don't often agree with you but on this I do.
I just cannot see how the BBC in its current form is tenable going forward and funding all of it out of general taxation.
The young are totally indifferent to the BBC as a whole. The BBC and its website keep trying to engage them but they just remind me of that gif on social media of Steve Buscemi in a baseball cap and holding a skateboard saying "how do you do fellow kids"
Youtube is the third most watched british channel after BBC1 and ITV and Netflix is fourth.
The BBC is becoming irrelevant to the people it is trying to engage with and, as a consequence, disengaging the people who use it regularly.
It's website it a waste of time. There's alot of magazine type features on it and plugs for its own shows.
BBC News, National and local, and magazine shows like BBC Breakfast and the One Show are used partly by lobbying organisations or charities to get messages placed. The 24 hour news cycle with little to fill it, usually, means they need pap to fill the airwaves. This is not peculiar to the BBC of course.
Is James Bond that franchise that is never as good as it never was?
A bit like Dr Who*, for spies...
*Dr Who has reappeared in BBC iPlayer archive section with the first modern series.
It’s also on Netflix.
Er... So you don't have to accept the free version, you can pay a subscription to watch it? Sounds great!
Which versions free in your eyes?
The BBC costs far, far more than Netflix. If you're on a tight budget then getting Netflix is much cheaper as well as much better value for money. The BBC is a luxury more than Netflix.
It is true on the face of it that a Netflix subscription is cheaper than a BBC license, but you need to compare like with like.
And what is like for like?
Like for like they are both TV subscription services and the reality is the BBC is the more expensive of the two. There is a reason ever increasing numbers of people, especially young people on a budget, are abandoning the BBC and choosing Netflix and other budget-friendly alternatives.
For someone to refer to the BBC as "free" is either naive or ignorant.
I am all for a voluntary BBC subscription service but you have to look at the BBC's constituent parts:
1) News 2) Drama 3) Comedy 4) Children's programming 5) Sport 6) Podcasts 7) Weather 8) Regional TV 9) Regional radio 10) Quiz shows 11) Gardening shows 12) BBC CYMRU 13) BBC Scotland 14) BBC Northern Ireland 15) Films 16) Er... 17) That's probably not it.
And then make a comparison. No point just saying, well Netflix has excellent drama and therefore it's worth as much as the BBC.
Do you think Netflix is just drama?
BBC is definitely better at 1 - but ever increasing amounts of people get their News from neither.
Netflix is much better than the BBC at 2, 3, 4 and 15
5 the BBC is better than Netflix but much worse than rivals that care for Sport (if you care for sport you'd be looking at other options)
Weather there are plenty of great websites to visit to get weather info - not sure why you need a TV to do that.
I couldn't care less about 6 through to 14 so couldn't comment on them.
Well exactly. And your priorities will be different to other people. If you differentiated to determine the minimum, you might find that in total, people are happy with what it currently is.
If you would pay, say, £4.99/month for 1, then others would pay £4.99/month each for 2, 4, and 8. Pretty soon you are at £14.58/month for the lot.
With a hell of a lot less hassle, frankly.
Except you don't get charged £4.99 for any of them individually.
Both subscription services offer a package and let people decide which package they want. I pay for many subscription services - Netflix, Sky, BBC, Disney+ and find BBC to be the least value of the lot costing far more than Netflix or Disney and nearly as much as Sky. But I can't have Sky without a Licence Fee which is a disgrace in 2020.
But this started because someone terms the BBC as free. Its not, its more expensive was my point. If I was on a budget I'd drop Sky and the Licence Fee before I dropped Netflix or Disney.
Just out of interest what would be your "go to" smartphone/internet news service? And what radio station would you listen to for news?
Radio I rarely listen to. If I want to listen to music I've got a Google Play music subscription service* which I find better than any radio station. If I must listen to the radio its normally Heart or any other commercial FM radio station playing decent music.
News - politicalbetting.com is my go to site. . I do use the BBC News website and many other websites too, but there's no subscription required to use that.
* Also a YouTube subscription service so no ads on YouTube. More for kids benefit than mine. Also forgot to mention Amazon Prime, rarely use it for TV that's for shopping purposes.
You are missing some stonking mini-series.
On Amazon or the BBC?
There's a plethora of great TV out there nowadays. Even during lockdown more than we can watch. That's the point though isn't it - people can choose now and are choosing, you are never going to convince my generation or those younger (let alone older getting used to it too) that linear programming organisations need saving.
Amazon I was thinking. Not a huge fan of BBC drama - Killing Eve, Doctor Who...meh. But then I'm not the right age demographic for that I suspect.
Amazon has some amazing stuff. Apart from the classics (Wire, Sopranos), it has lesser known series such as The Americans (brilliant), The Man in the High Castle, Modern Family, This Is Us, When They See Us, and Sneaky Pete.
Well worth a mooch around. Everyone has their favourites but it is a universally acknowledged truth that The Wire is the best mini-series ever made.
But I don't want to start that thread again.
I've been meaning to watch The Wire, Sopranos and Man in the High Castle when I find the time to do so. Good to know they're all on Amazon thank you.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
But that really isn't the choice, is it ? We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
Is James Bond that franchise that is never as good as it never was?
A bit like Dr Who*, for spies...
*Dr Who has reappeared in BBC iPlayer archive section with the first modern series.
It’s also on Netflix.
Er... So you don't have to accept the free version, you can pay a subscription to watch it? Sounds great!
Which versions free in your eyes?
The BBC costs far, far more than Netflix. If you're on a tight budget then getting Netflix is much cheaper as well as much better value for money. The BBC is a luxury more than Netflix.
It is true on the face of it that a Netflix subscription is cheaper than a BBC license, but you need to compare like with like.
And what is like for like?
Like for like they are both TV subscription services and the reality is the BBC is the more expensive of the two. There is a reason ever increasing numbers of people, especially young people on a budget, are abandoning the BBC and choosing Netflix and other budget-friendly alternatives.
For someone to refer to the BBC as "free" is either naive or ignorant.
I am all for a voluntary BBC subscription service but you have to look at the BBC's constituent parts:
1) News 2) Drama 3) Comedy 4) Children's programming 5) Sport 6) Podcasts 7) Weather 8) Regional TV 9) Regional radio 10) Quiz shows 11) Gardening shows 12) BBC CYMRU 13) BBC Scotland 14) BBC Northern Ireland 15) Films 16) Er... 17) That's probably not it.
And then make a comparison. No point just saying, well Netflix has excellent drama and therefore it's worth as much as the BBC.
Do you think Netflix is just drama?
BBC is definitely better at 1 - but ever increasing amounts of people get their News from neither.
Netflix is much better than the BBC at 2, 3, 4 and 15
5 the BBC is better than Netflix but much worse than rivals that care for Sport (if you care for sport you'd be looking at other options)
Weather there are plenty of great websites to visit to get weather info - not sure why you need a TV to do that.
I couldn't care less about 6 through to 14 so couldn't comment on them.
Well exactly. And your priorities will be different to other people. If you differentiated to determine the minimum, you might find that in total, people are happy with what it currently is.
If you would pay, say, £4.99/month for 1, then others would pay £4.99/month each for 2, 4, and 8. Pretty soon you are at £14.58/month for the lot.
With a hell of a lot less hassle, frankly.
Except you don't get charged £4.99 for any of them individually.
Both subscription services offer a package and let people decide which package they want. I pay for many subscription services - Netflix, Sky, BBC, Disney+ and find BBC to be the least value of the lot costing far more than Netflix or Disney and nearly as much as Sky. But I can't have Sky without a Licence Fee which is a disgrace in 2020.
But this started because someone terms the BBC as free. Its not, its more expensive was my point. If I was on a budget I'd drop Sky and the Licence Fee before I dropped Netflix or Disney.
Just out of interest what would be your "go to" smartphone/internet news service? And what radio station would you listen to for news?
Radio I rarely listen to. If I want to listen to music I've got a Google Play music subscription service* which I find better than any radio station. If I must listen to the radio its normally Heart or any other commercial FM radio station playing decent music.
News - politicalbetting.com is my go to site. . I do use the BBC News website and many other websites too, but there's no subscription required to use that.
* Also a YouTube subscription service so no ads on YouTube. More for kids benefit than mine. Also forgot to mention Amazon Prime, rarely use it for TV that's for shopping purposes.
You are missing some stonking mini-series.
On Amazon or the BBC?
There's a plethora of great TV out there nowadays. Even during lockdown more than we can watch. That's the point though isn't it - people can choose now and are choosing, you are never going to convince my generation or those younger (let alone older getting used to it too) that linear programming organisations need saving.
Amazon I was thinking. Not a huge fan of BBC drama - Killing Eve, Doctor Who...meh. But then I'm not the right age demographic for that I suspect.
Amazon has some amazing stuff. Apart from the classics (Wire, Sopranos), it has lesser known series such as The Americans (brilliant), The Man in the High Castle, Modern Family, This Is Us, When They See Us, and Sneaky Pete.
Well worth a mooch around. Everyone has their favourites but it is a universally acknowledged truth that The Wire is the best mini-series ever made.
But I don't want to start that thread again.
I've been meaning to watch The Wire, Sopranos and Man in the High Castle when I find the time to do so. Good to know they're all on Amazon thank you.
I bought season 1 of the wire and got 5 episodes in but it didn't do anything at all for me. Many people, all of whom I respect their views on TV, recommended it but it just didn't click for me.
The BBC certainly missed a trick when it set up BBC store. Streaming was the way to go and they have got into it far too late. Britbox will be a flop in the UK.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
But that really isn't the choice, is it ? We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
What are the Dutch doing at Schipol?
I ask because I think the British assumption is that cases will enter the country anyway and monitoring would give rise to a false sense of security.
Why shouldn't parents who can afford it pay for their children's education?
It's simpler to have it be a universal benefit. If you're worried about the rich not paying their fair share, that's what progressive taxation is for.
Being "simpler" is not a terribly convincing argument. The state could indeed simplify my life by paying for my next holiday through general taxation.
I suggest skin-in-the-game is what really matters; this is why state schools in middle class areas are so much better than those in council estates.
How is introducing a new benefit for holidays simplifying anything? That's the opposite, adding new complexity- the same as what you're proposing with means-testing school benefits.
The arguments for simplicity should be obvious: It's cheaper to administer, it leads to fewer edge cases of people gaining or losing out unfairly due some peculiarity of their circumstances that happens to not match up well with the rules, and it's easier to explain and sell to the public.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
THe GOv'ts complacency over airports has been an absolute disgrace. I think I may have made this point a few times here. If we're getting R0 down, must be time to start looking at stopping arrivals from certain places. I'M LOOKING AT YOU JFK
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
The fact is for those under 45 Covid 19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu, once the peak has passed the focus should be on gettimg them back to school, college and work as soon as possible, using mass testing to try and keep the spread under control and still keeping prudent social distancing.
Then ultimately the focus should shift to just keeping those over 70 who are most at risk indoors with lockdown ended but the advice to them being to stay indoors as much as possible until a vaccine is found or the virus dies out.
Note that one seventh of all deaths for ages 15-44 in the week ending 3rd April 2020 were down as COVID-19 deaths.
People aged 15 to 44 die from seasonal flu too but barely any of them die at all so no surprise there.
The fact remains the death rate for under 45s is around 0.5% or less from Covid 19 so no higher than seasonal flu really and the focus must therefore be on getting them to school, college or work as soon as possible once the peak has passed
There's something amiss with this argument, I think. I think it's that while under 45s die from seasonal flu, hardly any of them get it. While lots of them appear to be getting Covid 19. A disease which you are almost certain to get (for that is the case without a vaccine or herd immunity) and which you have a 1 in 200 chance of dying from is something to worry about.
Now, I personally think the death rate will turn out to be lower, as the number of asymptomatic or not-much-symptomatic cases will turn out to be larger (though my expertise in this is no greater than any interested observer). So I do see cause for optimism. But choosing not to worry on the basis of 'only' a 1 in 200 chance of dying seems remarkably cavalier.
Compared to say a 1 in 10 chance of mass unemployment if under 45s do not go back to work once the peak is over a less than 1 in 200 chance of them dying if they catch Covid 19 is less significant, especially if we use mass testing and face masks to reduce the risk of spread
I agree 1 in 200 is less significant than 1 in 10. But death is rather more significant than unemployment. AT THESE ODDS, I would choose the higher risk of unemployment. Its not that I'm especially anxious about the 1 in 200 risk of me dying (though I am anxious). I'm more concerned about the certainty of many of those I love dying - and hell, even many of those I don't love. Even to reduce it to cold economics, losing 1 in 200 of the working age population seems something of a negative. And more people will recover from unemployment than recover from death. Now, as I said, I think the odds of dying are overstated at 1 in 200. And I know that many will also die as a result of the depression we are heading towards. And on an emotional level I'm fed up of the lockdown. But to me the argument for ending it doesn't seem particularly clear cut, and a 1 in 200 chance of dying seems pretty unappealing.
Don't know how old you are but at around 60 that is about your chance of dying in the next year anyway. The odds do not improve from there either. You just have to acknowledge the risk and get on with other stuff. Choosing unemployment for others who are younger than you as a trade-off for safety is unacceptable.
1. Nice strawman. I'm happy to pay for your kids education. Your bahamain adventure is neither necessary or desirable. Public service broadcasting is.
2. I think the BBC should be funded from general taxation, but ringfenced and chartered properly to ensure its independence. The TV license is regressive in that it's harder for families that can make the best use of its public service aspect (that includes entertainment) to actually pay for it. A subscription is just the TV license but without the breadth of programming that collecting from everyone allows and requires.
3. This is aimed at Phillip and the rest of the "Why must I pay for Eastenders REEEEE" crowd: Entertainment is a public service. You might not like the output, but the Beeb has a requirement to produce programming that a majority enjoy. Eastenders is popular and people like it. For a lot of people, particularly the elderly who may not be able to afford (or even really understand) the insane world of streaming services it is a lifeline that provides them with varied entertainment they can meaningfully engage with. Eastenders is amongst the Beeb's most popular programming. I don't like it especially, but my widowed Grandmother practically lives for it. I don't watch kids TV but the number of "Thank God for CBBC" statuses on FB from child-rearing friends have been rising steadily with my entry into my 30s. I am happy for these things to exist because they provide pleasure, education and good cheer to a huge number of people. Now I'm sure Socky will pop up from the well of unintelligent posts and say "But my holiday does that". However the state spending money on one person to go to the Bahamas is not a good allocation of resources. Spending money on programming that makes the day of ten million people slightly better absolutely is.
Agree with the point about streaming services being difficult for the elderly to manage - had that with mum.
I think Freeview is different, but that does not reach us for some reason. i is a poor signal spot.
I still say make the BBC like the National Trust - a charitable incorporation with a membership, governed by the membership indirectly to give a moderately slow rate of any change.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
THe GOv'ts complacency over airports has been an absolute disgrace. I think I may have made this point a few times here. If we're getting R0 down, must be time to start looking at stopping arrivals from certain places. I'M LOOKING AT YOU JFK
It's the same "we know better" decision making from our ruling classes in the civil service. They are no longer fit for purpose. Our "experts" have shown themselves to be severely lacking in this crisis. Everything has been late, poorly thought out and poorly planned. We have public bodies fighting against the private sector and all kinds of procurement issues. We need a huge clear out once this is over, as with brexit where the likes of Ollie Robbins thought he was the smartest guy in the room but was outsmarted at every turn by Barnier and his team, our experts have been caught short on far too many occasions.
One thing that makes it difficult online is the lack of other information to go with profiles. EG I'd be curious to know the age profile of the BBC debate. I'm 37 and I'm curious if anyone my age or younger is on the side of compulsory BBC payments.
It does seem (no disrespect intended) that the desire to see the BBC paid for by all is a metric of the elderly. While simultaneously not wanting the elderly to pay for it!
The difference between most young-old debates though is that as people get older their views change on many things, but I wager it won't on the BBC. People who've grown up to view entertainment on a plethora of platforms aren't going to grow up into viewing the BBC as special for entertainment above all others.
I wonder if the government will have the guts and integrity to adopt the only approach to the economic crisis which is both feasible and fair - higher and steeply progressive taxation with a focus on wealth.
If they do I'll be voting Conservative next time, Starmer or no Starmer.
And if they do it I won't be voting Conservative next time, Boris or no Boris
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
Yet despite the empty roads a certain cohort of cyclists still insist on cycling on the pavement. Some of them may be newbies but not all.
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
But that really isn't the choice, is it ? We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
I think the answer is that it doesn't work. Screening by temperature misses the asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms, and catches a lot of other people. No other country is currently much worse than us so it doesn't really matter. And to do it properly the Government would have to rent hotels and quarantine everyone for 14 days under house arrest,
Why shouldn't parents who can afford it pay for their children's education?
It's simpler to have it be a universal benefit. If you're worried about the rich not paying their fair share, that's what progressive taxation is for.
Being "simpler" is not a terribly convincing argument. The state could indeed simplify my life by paying for my next holiday through general taxation.
I suggest skin-in-the-game is what really matters; this is why state schools in middle class areas are so much better than those in council estates.
How is introducing a new benefit for holidays simplifying anything? That's the opposite, adding new complexity- the same as what you're proposing with means-testing school benefits.
The arguments for simplicity should be obvious: It's cheaper to administer, it leads to fewer edge cases of people gaining or losing out unfairly due some peculiarity of their circumstances that happens to not match up well with the rules, and it's easier to explain and sell to the public.
That's exactly what happened when they introduced free prescriptions for medicine etc in Scotland: much of the additional cost turned out to be covered by the reduction in bureaucracy, given that quite a few people such as OAPs and those on the dole were getting prescriptions free anyway, whatever happened.
The arguments for simplicity should be obvious: It's cheaper to administer, it leads to fewer edge cases of people gaining or losing out unfairly due some peculiarity of their circumstances that happens to not match up well with the rules, and it's easier to explain and sell to the public.
Simpler is indeed good as a principle, but there will be downsides. Making people pay for something (say education) may be more complex, but if it results in better schools (and I think it would) then it is a price worth paying.
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
But that really isn't the choice, is it ? We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
I think the answer is that it doesn't work. Screening by temperature misses the asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms, and catches a lot of other people. No other country is currently much worse than us so it doesn't really matter. And to do it properly the Government would have to rent hotels and quarantine everyone for 14 days under house arrest,
New Zealand managed it. If people genuinely, really genuinely need to fly they'll accept quarantine on each end.
Comments
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
News - politicalbetting.com is my go to site.
* Also a YouTube subscription service so no ads on YouTube. More for kids benefit than mine. Also forgot to mention Amazon Prime, rarely use it for TV that's for shopping purposes.
The fact remains the death rate for under 45s is around 0.5% or less from Covid 19 so no higher than seasonal flu really and the focus must therefore be on getting them to school, college or work as soon as possible once the peak has passed
But that's not the point. The point is that everyone has to pay for the BBC whether they want it or not. It's as if we all had to pay an annual fee to Sainsburys even though we could choose to shop at any one of a number of other supermarkets.
I could perhaps buy the argument for BBC radio being paid for out of taxation, if only because subscription radio is very difficult to do. But there is nothing else that they do that other providers don't do better and more cheaply.
Educational films are better done by youtube
Weather you can get direct from any number of weather forecasters without needing some overdressed presenter
News there are plenty of source
Best documentaries in the world? opinion sorry about the only thing I rate is some of the wildlife stuff and that is usually made by third parties in any case. Kids tv is available widely on netflix, prime, disney
There is nothing the bbc does that is not done better elsewhere
'Why we shouldn't let the China virus destroy our economy'
So the final Brexit deal will be the same. The utter lack of any movement on creating the physical, digital and human resource needed for no deal with the insistence that we will have a deal reveals the nature of the deal: alignment. We will remain entirely aligned with the EU because we leave ourselves no other options. Boris will declare that we are not aligned, the media will repeat it, and anyone saying "but I can see your cock my Emperor" will be dismissed as another remoaner.
So in 2021 when we pass through borders the signs will be EU+EEA+CH+UK. Not that anyone will have a problem getting through the UK border - we aren't even asking people coming in if they are in during a pandemic, so the idea that we will be stopping people next year and interviewing them about what they are doing is absurd.
The situation is being managed a day at a time. Social distancing measures may have to be relaxed in the foreseeable future depending on the overall situation. Sweden has controlled the epidemic with half the level of cases per million of population that we have with less social distancing and economic disruption. Ferguson should produce his evidence that social distancing works, and if he has none why should he demand that the government follow his suggestions?
News maybe. Things that serve a public service function. That is not what the BBC does though most of the time.
Some years back, there was a hilarious exchange on Canadian TV - a Canadian enviro-politician type was ranting about how terrible US anti-missile defines was for world peace, and how Canada would be dragged into it against its will etc.
The American general who was another guest, mildly remarked that wasn't so - if Canada didn't want to take part, the US would set the Keep-Out-Zone (the geographic area the system would defend) to the US only.
Which sparked off a rant about how evil that would be.....
Secondly, universal services have tangible benefits for all but the absolute wealthiest. If you're our middle-class Surreyite then you can spend 40% of your yearly income sending the eldest to Harrow, or you can (optimally) send him to a good local school which will save you a pile of cash you can spend on something else. Poorer families obviously get access to quality education they would not have had otherwise. Wealthy families probably don't benefit since they'll throw money at their kids' education anyway, but given that society as a whole benefits from higher education levels then, well, eh. I'm still keen to give them the option to send their kids to a state school, because even having the option to do so leaves open the possibility of solidarity in the event that some event occurs that prevents them from being able to afford their preferred school.
Not sure that's a vote winner...
The BBC's issue is its not that well loved and not that good for a vast and growing number of people. Its actually pretty crap.
3912 deaths in England and Wales in March involving covid there was at least one pre existing condition prevailing in 91% of cases
And then it all stops. Your hutch isn't very nice to live in all day every day. Your commute is awful. And the office whilst nice now and then isn't really that great. How many people are going to throw themselves back into that? What we have now is Bad. What so many had then was Bad. We aren't going back to status quo ante. The absurd cost of living where all property costs £stupid because all other property is the same have to stop.
I think it's that while under 45s die from seasonal flu, hardly any of them get it. While lots of them appear to be getting Covid 19. A disease which you are almost certain to get (for that is the case without a vaccine or herd immunity) and which you have a 1 in 200 chance of dying from is something to worry about.
Now, I personally think the death rate will turn out to be lower, as the number of asymptomatic or not-much-symptomatic cases will turn out to be larger (though my expertise in this is no greater than any interested observer). So I do see cause for optimism. But choosing not to worry on the basis of 'only' a 1 in 200 chance of dying seems remarkably cavalier.
"Es cierto que nadie estaba realmente preparado para esto, pero también es cierto que hubo demasiadas ausencias cuando Italia necesitó ayuda en los primeros momentos", ha dicho en una comparecencia ante el Parlamento europeo.
Von der Leyen cree "de justicia" que la UE pida "perdón de todo corazón" a los italianos y que esa disculpa se traduzca también en un "cambio de actitud".
EU says sorry to Italy. Good for them.
A generation is growing up who don't watch TV channels.
However they should be very familiar to the UK's tax-avoiding billionaires and certain backers of political parties who didn't like the sound of the upcoming EU anti-tax avoidance regs ...
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1250692097205841920?s=19
2. I think the BBC should be funded from general taxation, but ringfenced and chartered properly to ensure its independence. The TV license is regressive in that it's harder for families that can make the best use of its public service aspect (that includes entertainment) to actually pay for it. A subscription is just the TV license but without the breadth of programming that collecting from everyone allows and requires.
3. This is aimed at Phillip and the rest of the "Why must I pay for Eastenders REEEEE" crowd: Entertainment is a public service. You might not like the output, but the Beeb has a requirement to produce programming that a majority enjoy. Eastenders is popular and people like it. For a lot of people, particularly the elderly who may not be able to afford (or even really understand) the insane world of streaming services it is a lifeline that provides them with varied entertainment they can meaningfully engage with. Eastenders is amongst the Beeb's most popular programming. I don't like it especially, but my widowed Grandmother practically lives for it. I don't watch kids TV but the number of "Thank God for CBBC" statuses on FB from child-rearing friends have been rising steadily with my entry into my 30s. I am happy for these things to exist because they provide pleasure, education and good cheer to a huge number of people. Now I'm sure Socky will pop up from the well of unintelligent posts and say "But my holiday does that". However the state spending money on one person to go to the Bahamas is not a good allocation of resources. Spending money on programming that makes the day of ten million people slightly better absolutely is.
Altruism has to be a choice.
Fine. The next GE is 4 years away. Most people will be sensible and grown up enough to accept there has been a massive, once in a hundred years change in the economic environment.
Just what PM Sanchez was asking for a couple of weeks ago. The Commission is listening - how will the member states react?
The idea that the BBC must be kept for CBBC is the most laughably inept fallacy of all. I wonder how many kids actually watch CBBC? Mine never watch it and that's not because of my choice (my daughter knows how to use the remote). They're aged 3 and 6 and both love YouTube far more than any TV Channel. They can find a plethora of kids programming they love on Netflix or Disney or YouTube, why would they bother with the BBC?
Any talk of General Taxation or whatever is a desperate throw by Cultural Luddites to try and save a failing behemoth just because people are freely choosing alternatives.
There's a plethora of great TV out there nowadays. Even during lockdown more than we can watch. That's the point though isn't it - people can choose now and are choosing, you are never going to convince my generation or those younger (let alone older getting used to it too) that linear programming organisations need saving.
2) I haven't asked anyone to pay for me to be able to watch what I enjoy unlike the fund the bbc through general taxation crowd
Nobody will care about this by next time, whatever the government needs to do it should and I expect will do. In the meantime there's not point point getting obsessed over the sausage, especially while its not getting made right now.
If they had, they would be selling BBC TV online, around the world, making a fortune.
Within a decade, broadcasting a TV signal via radio is going to seem like making the radio announcers wear full evening dress...
As you rightly say, social interaction hasn't changed but at that sort of age young people need to be doing more than just interacting 'verbally'.
As I say, best of. It's to be hoped that if lockdown is staged it'shis age group that's among the earliest.
‘Although the institutions of our culture are so amazingly good that they have been able to manage stability in the face of rapid change for hundreds of years, the knowledge of what it takes to keep civilization stable in the face of rapidly increasing knowledge is not very widespread. In fact, severe misconceptions about several aspects of it are common among political leaders, educated people, and society at large. We’re like people on a huge, well-designed submarine, which has all sorts of lifesaving devices built in, who don’t know they’re in a submarine. They think they’re in a motorboat, and they’re going to open all the hatches because they want to have a nicer view.’ David Deutsch, the physicist who extended Alan Turing’s 1936 paper on classical computation to quantum computation.
There is nobody who may not be able to afford streaming services considering they are all CHEAPER than the BBC so that's absolute codswallop.
As far as whether Eastenders is amongst the BBC's most popular programming - so f***ing what? Tiger King is amongst Netflix's most popular programming right now. Should Tiger King be paid for out of General Taxation? If people want to pay for Eastenders let them, its a free society. There is absolutely no public service in find out what Phil Mitchell is up to this week. Any more than there is in Hollyoaks or Coronation Street or Holby City or any other drama or soap.
I do have kids and I call bullshit on any "Thank God for CBBC" statuses. CBBC is shit. Kids have an abundant variety of alternatives.
Anyone who thinks "entertainment" is "public service" must have been in a coma for my entire lifetime it seems as if that was ever true its certainly not now.
AT THESE ODDS, I would choose the higher risk of unemployment.
Its not that I'm especially anxious about the 1 in 200 risk of me dying (though I am anxious). I'm more concerned about the certainty of many of those I love dying - and hell, even many of those I don't love. Even to reduce it to cold economics, losing 1 in 200 of the working age population seems something of a negative. And more people will recover from unemployment than recover from death.
Now, as I said, I think the odds of dying are overstated at 1 in 200. And I know that many will also die as a result of the depression we are heading towards. And on an emotional level I'm fed up of the lockdown. But to me the argument for ending it doesn't seem particularly clear cut, and a 1 in 200 chance of dying seems pretty unappealing.
Good luck with making that popular.
The problem is growing amounts of people don't want it. Trying to find ever extravagant ways to force people to pay for an entertainment they don't want is nonsense. The simplest solution remains the best - let people who want to pay for it do so while producing something people want to pay for.
I wonder if the government will have the guts and integrity to adopt the only approach to the economic crisis which is both feasible and fair - higher and steeply progressive taxation with a focus on wealth.
If they do I'll be voting Conservative next time, Starmer or no Starmer.
Amazon has some amazing stuff. Apart from the classics (Wire, Sopranos), it has lesser known series such as The Americans (brilliant), The Man in the High Castle, Modern Family, This Is Us, When They See Us, and Sneaky Pete.
Well worth a mooch around. Everyone has their favourites but it is a universally acknowledged truth that The Wire is the best mini-series ever made.
But I don't want to start that thread again.
https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1250697711944454144?s=20
https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1250700351763894272?s=20
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?
I suggest skin-in-the-game is what really matters; this is why state schools in middle class areas are so much better than those in council estates.
A less than 0.5% chance of dying is no justification for keeping under 45s locked up indefinitely
I just cannot see how the BBC in its current form is tenable going forward and funding all of it out of general taxation.
The young are totally indifferent to the BBC as a whole. The BBC and its website keep trying to engage them but they just remind me of that gif on social media of Steve Buscemi in a baseball cap and holding a skateboard saying "how do you do fellow kids"
Youtube is the third most watched british channel after BBC1 and ITV and Netflix is fourth.
The BBC is becoming irrelevant to the people it is trying to engage with and, as a consequence, disengaging the people who use it regularly.
It's website it a waste of time. There's alot of magazine type features on it and plugs for its own shows.
BBC News, National and local, and magazine shows like BBC Breakfast and the One Show are used partly by lobbying organisations or charities to get messages placed. The 24 hour news cycle with little to fill it, usually, means they need pap to fill the airwaves. This is not peculiar to the BBC of course.
Homeland's the only thing I regularly watch on TV.
We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.
The BBC certainly missed a trick when it set up BBC store. Streaming was the way to go and they have got into it far too late. Britbox will be a flop in the UK.
I ask because I think the British assumption is that cases will enter the country anyway and monitoring would give rise to a false sense of security.
The arguments for simplicity should be obvious: It's cheaper to administer, it leads to fewer edge cases of people gaining or losing out unfairly due some peculiarity of their circumstances that happens to not match up well with the rules, and it's easier to explain and sell to the public.
Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.
Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.
PB is back to arguing about the BBC.
I think Freeview is different, but that does not reach us for some reason. i is a poor signal spot.
I still say make the BBC like the National Trust - a charitable incorporation with a membership, governed by the membership indirectly to give a moderately slow rate of any change.
One thing that makes it difficult online is the lack of other information to go with profiles. EG I'd be curious to know the age profile of the BBC debate. I'm 37 and I'm curious if anyone my age or younger is on the side of compulsory BBC payments.
It does seem (no disrespect intended) that the desire to see the BBC paid for by all is a metric of the elderly. While simultaneously not wanting the elderly to pay for it!
The difference between most young-old debates though is that as people get older their views change on many things, but I wager it won't on the BBC. People who've grown up to view entertainment on a plethora of platforms aren't going to grow up into viewing the BBC as special for entertainment above all others.