I am with @SeaShantyIrish2 on this one, namely that Rice would be a very good VP candidate in many ways but that her baggage is significant and that is before the possibility that more revelations come out from the Durham probe into the indictment of Michael Flynn where Rice is centre stage - from this article, it looks as though there will be more revelations soon. If anything, I would be tempted to sell Rice at this point but, as has been said. it's too risky given it's within the gift of one man.
As for Harris, I never really understood why she was so short on the odds given she has baggage and then attacked Biden. The article in HuffPost also probably doesn't help given Big Tech is a focus for
I'll reiterate my tip from before which is Lujan Grisham of New Mexico - Biden is facing a enthusiasm gap with Hispanics and Lujan helps him with that plus in the surrounding states in the South West.
Starting from scratch that would have made a lot of sense but the black community now think that they are on a promise and it would be unwise to disappoint them.
EU integration can both accelerate and deepen without the Inselaffen fucking things up.
As Orwell correctly observed, the sole political goal worth pursuing is a socialist United States of Europe.
Surely not? I thought Orwell's entire contemporary relevance is to justify gammons using dodgy expressions on twitter (the term 'gammon' being the exception of course).
Orwell's contemporary relevance includes causing lefties to start getting upset when people use his works to point out that some ideas were bad the first 27 times they were tried.
And that their failure was dissected and explained in said books.
At the risk of sending many into meltdown here, this piece is worth a read - it's why the polls are more likely to be suggesting a Trump victory in November
Selective quoting by the Sepctator. The US public in that YouGov Poll (100+ questions!) were split 39-40.
It's not the only poll though that has been showing the same, even those with fairly substantial Democrat leads (sad person I am I have been looking at the supplementary questions on a few polls).
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
He could get a job like everyone else without a guaranteed income?
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Deleted for stupidity.
Nobody has plus two legs a few have minus two legs so average is less than two
EU integration can both accelerate and deepen without the Inselaffen fucking things up.
As Orwell correctly observed, the sole political goal worth pursuing is a socialist United States of Europe.
Surely not? I thought Orwell's entire contemporary relevance is to justify gammons using dodgy expressions on twitter (the term 'gammon' being the exception of course).
Orwell is a bit like Adam Smith - something in there for all political persuasions (even the totalitarians get a how-to manual).
Just so. A PB poster citing him in support of liberalising private gun ownership was one of my recent favourites.
He's just brilliantly quotable. A sound bite writer before such things even existed.
Re. the previous conversation about copyright, the Orwell/Blair estate would possess Beatles level wealth if it was on a royalty every time Orwell was quoted. Trouble is that he's not around to counter every Tom, Harry and particularly Dick appropriating his words for their particular hobbyhorse, eg because Orwell wrote an article comparing the Home Guard favourably to totalitarian paramilitaries & the like, it means that he'd be in favour of sexually frustrated lard buckets with AR15s threatening elected representatives.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
Crap odds given he pulled out last week, and anyone who was not aware he was not firing on all cylinders is not too bright.
Er, Malc..... from the Beeb this morning Kanye West has officially launched his campaign for the 2020 US presidential election, with an unorthodox rally in Charleston, South Carolina. West, 43, is running as a candidate for his self-styled "Birthday Party".
Didn't seem the best of rallies, TBH, given the report!
So he was in and then said he was not running and now he is running again. Not the full shilling I think, looking for cheap publicity , surprise surprise.
Not sure he'll pick off many Democratic votes... Rapper Kanye West, in his first event since declaring himself a presidential candidate, ranted against historical figure Harriet Tubman on Sunday, saying the Underground Railroad conductor “never actually freed the slaves, she just had them work for other white people,” comments that drew shouts of opposition from some in the crowd...
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
£900m was at the last balance sheet date and the world has changed since then
If it is at the most recent balance sheet date it is reasonable and not misleading to use that figure.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
For everthing else it is life + 70 years which is even worse. Write a book at age 20 live till you are 100 and it takes 150 years to get into the public domain which defeats the whole point of copyright which was a deal between creators and the people whereby they got a monopoly for originally I believe 14 years as an incentive to create before the work became public domain.
The one that *really* goes up my nose is the 4% artists' tax on resales of any artwork that has already been sold once. Is it called the Artists' Resale Right?
A complete scam.
Blame the french for that...
As it happens on the French wrt weekend's woke conversations - I came across something this morning that actually includes a French individual as a real frog .
Presciently, Characters from the show appeared alongside various other puppet characters in an episode of The Goodies, in which the puppets take over the running of the United Kingdom as a puppet government.....
Hector could be almost any one of the current cabinet.
I would say that Gavin Williamson has come closest to matching the full range of facial expressions.
For the Hectorian mixture of risibility and faux gravitas, though, look no further than Boris.
Parris in the Times expressed the essence of him very well, I thought -
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
Basically you have to be really careful with averages. It's why productivity stats are dubious - it wouldn't be a huge surprise if our productivity improves over the next year, but it's not something to celebrate.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Actually it's 'worse' than that. Registering the patent has to be done quite early in the process. Consequently a pharmaceutical company gets, IIRC about half of those 20 to actually recover on it's investment. And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
And even worse if they’re developing a novel antibiotic. Even if it works, policy is to restrict its use as much as possible, so that it can reserves only for cases where current antibiotics no longer work. Which is why most pharmas have abandoned the sector completely.
Downing Street in ‘panic mode’ on Union as PM heads for Scotland
The Prime Minister will highlight economic support from the UK Treasury during the crisis, with his government subsidising the wages of nearly a third of Scottish workers.
Mr Johnson’s handling of the pandemic has cost him support, with his net approval rating on the crisis lagging 99 points behind that of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, at -39 points to her +60.
... a Cabinet source told the Sunday Times: “Michael [Gove] is in panic mode about the Union and Boris is in irritated mode.”
... the Press and Journal reported that Lord McInnes, the director of the Scottish Conservative Party, will brief the Cabinet this week alongside polling guru James Kanagasooriam, who worked on the party’s 2016 Holyrood campaign...
It is this transactional Unionist thinking that is killing the Union. England can’t buy Scotland.
Including Don't Knows, Yes is still not over 50% and of course we now know the Indy vote will be split augmented and better deployed at a Scottish election next year for the first time since 2014
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
Small children perhaps, but what about cabinet ministers? Burgon? Trump? Be fair to all.
EU integration can both accelerate and deepen without the Inselaffen fucking things up.
As Orwell correctly observed, the sole political goal worth pursuing is a socialist United States of Europe.
Surely not? I thought Orwell's entire contemporary relevance is to justify gammons using dodgy expressions on twitter (the term 'gammon' being the exception of course).
Orwell is a bit like Adam Smith - something in there for all political persuasions (even the totalitarians get a how-to manual).
Just so. A PB poster citing him in support of liberalising private gun ownership was one of my recent favourites.
He's just brilliantly quotable. A sound bite writer before such things even existed.
Re. the previous conversation about copyright, the Orwell/Blair estate would possess Beatles level wealth if it was on a royalty every time Orwell was quoted. Trouble is that he's not around to counter every Tom, Harry and particularly Dick appropriating his words for their particular hobbyhorse, eg because Orwell wrote an article comparing the Home Guard favourably to totalitarian paramilitaries & the like, it means that he'd be in favour of sexually frustrated lard buckets with AR15s threatening elected representatives.
Quotes are not copyright protected in most instances as they are not substantial enough parts of an overall work.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Deleted for stupidity.
Nobody has plus two legs a few have minus two legs so average is less than two
How about Jake the Peg?
2 legs good, 3 legs better.
He's been sent to the Jimmy Savile salt mines, never to be heard of again. Almost Orwellian..
If the interferon beta trial is as successful as is being made out does it mean we can get rid of social distancing? If there's a treatment option that prevents people from dying and helps them recover quickly surely we can live with people catching it.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
Basically you have to be really careful with averages. It's why productivity stats are dubious - it wouldn't be a huge surprise if our productivity improves over the next year, but it's not something to celebrate.
I don't disagree. My point was that things, especially in the public domain where accuracy is important and facts can be checked easily, are rarely "accurate and misleading".
The only example I can think of, which is hardly a matter of national import, is those amusing edited theatre reviews. Now banned I see, by the EU of all things.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
By big deal I mean as a news story. It happens all the time so it is very much a slow news day kind of item.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
Small children perhaps, but what about cabinet ministers? Burgon? Trump? Be fair to all.
Actually that is a good point. Not a clue any of them I'm guessing.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
A-ha had no fewer than 18 top 40 hits (and "Take on Me" wasn't even the biggest - it peaked at number two, whereas "The Sun Always Shines on TV" was number one), Soft Cell had twelve, Dexys Midnight Runners had nine, Right Said Fred had seven, Vanilla Ice had four, Baha Men ("Who Let the Dogs Out?") had three,
Only Los del Rio and Toni Basil truly count in your list.
Sure, bands that are a few decades old and weren't megastars are now normally remembered (if at all) for their biggest hit. But that doesn't make them one hit wonders if, at the time, they had a few.
Missing from that list is Japanese Boy (1981) by Aneka (Mary Sandeman in real life).
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Actually it's 'worse' than that. Registering the patent has to be done quite early in the process. Consequently a pharmaceutical company gets, IIRC about half of those 20 to actually recover on it's investment. And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
And even worse if they’re developing a novel antibiotic. Even if it works, policy is to restrict its use as much as possible, so that it can reserves only for cases where current antibiotics no longer work. Which is why most pharmas have abandoned the sector completely.
I did A Level Zoology in 1957. The teacher told us that 'one of these days' we'd run out of antibiotics because developing resistance was what organisms did. He could, at the time cite the recovery of the rabbit population from myxomatosis........no I know rabbits aren't bacteria!
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Actually it's 'worse' than that. Registering the patent has to be done quite early in the process. Consequently a pharmaceutical company gets, IIRC about half of those 20 to actually recover on it's investment. And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
And even worse if they’re developing a novel antibiotic. Even if it works, policy is to restrict its use as much as possible, so that it can reserves only for cases where current antibiotics no longer work. Which is why most pharmas have abandoned the sector completely.
You’re reminding me of Ketek and Tygacil
Please don’t do that
*shudders*
Ketek involved fraud, and probably ought never to have been approve, I think ? My point was that even honest companies doing good science tend to be on a hiding to nothing when it comes to developing antibiotics.
Some medical problems require a different model of funding and incentivising research and development.
If the interferon beta trial is as successful as is being made out does it mean we can get rid of social distancing? If there's a treatment option that prevents people from dying and helps them recover quickly surely we can live with people catching it.
Yep. If I knew it would be bad flu at worst I would be a-hugging and a-kissing perfect strangers again.
If the interferon beta trial is as successful as is being made out does it mean we can get rid of social distancing? If there's a treatment option that prevents people from dying and helps them recover quickly surely we can live with people catching it.
I don't think you can yet assume for certain that it prevents people from dying (though it's quite likely that it does).
This was a very small trial (101 patients), with two deaths in the control arm, and none among those treated with the interferon. Very promising, but you need a bigger trial, and long term follow up to be certain. Some way to go yet (though they say they will have manufacturing for 100k doses per month by 'winter').
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
£900m was at the last balance sheet date and the world has changed since then
... and for a business with lots of staff, physical assets such as shops that need to maintained etc. £900m can evaporate awfully fast.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Deleted for stupidity.
Nobody has plus two legs a few have minus two legs so average is less than two
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
You're smarter than that. Things taken out of context can very easily be both accurate and misleading.
So what is the misleading part of the JL story?
What it omits. That JLP is in a world of pain right now, that its shops are an albatross, and it needed to restructure badly despite Covid. You notice I didn’t mention growth or profits
Volvo's Polestar 2 looks stunning. Not as stunning as my S90 but not far off. Problem for any high-capacity battery cars that aren't Tesla is the utter lack of fast (150kW) chargers. And of the few that exist a decent % are run by Ionity who want an absurd 69p for a kWh of leccy. So the next generation of battery chemistry thats supposedly round the corner will be the tipping point to make it doable for us who do distances on the motorway.
We got a 22kw charger at home and just plug it in every night so Mrs DA (not famous for her patience) doesn't have to frig around with public chargers. It gets the Taycan to 80% SoC in about 6 hours.
The Polestar 2 has a very good interior and hits a sweet spot in terms of price and power. I think it'll be a hit.
Haven't got 3-phase, but still have a 7kW charger on the wall next to the driveway which should still recharge something like a P2 overnight. Its just if you wander further afield (and I do) - there are vast numbers of 50kW chargers compared to 2017. But 50kW is too slow for high capacity batteries.
I agree with you on the car though. My S90 is a beautiful thing to sit in, and the Polestar has got the same design language and I assume build quality. "But its made in China" say the wags. Yes, so is mine. And?
The government is spending big money on the high capacity charger infrastructure. Would be worth tracking down what the actual plan is on that one.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Actually it's 'worse' than that. Registering the patent has to be done quite early in the process. Consequently a pharmaceutical company gets, IIRC about half of those 20 to actually recover on it's investment. And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
And even worse if they’re developing a novel antibiotic. Even if it works, policy is to restrict its use as much as possible, so that it can reserves only for cases where current antibiotics no longer work. Which is why most pharmas have abandoned the sector completely.
I did A Level Zoology in 1957. The teacher told us that 'one of these days' we'd run out of antibiotics because developing resistance was what organisms did. He could, at the time cite the recovery of the rabbit population from myxomatosis........no I know rabbits aren't bacteria!
And finding new ways to kill bacteria is what science can do.
Our current predicament has much to do with the mass use of antibiotics in farming, which was one of the more greedy and stupid things that pharmaceutical companies have done.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
"Come on Eileen" was Dexy's second number one. "Geno" is a far superior record.
"I'm too Sexy" was not a number one - because of Robin Hood. But one of their follow-ups "Deeply Dippy" did make it to number one.
"Come on Eileen" is a marvellous song, strange, clever, poignant, exhilarating
It's also oddly flexible, and can be covered in multiple ways - as jazz, easy listening, country, hard rock - here's a Gaelic version
England need some Curran fairly quickly, both for the left arm swing and to create more rough for Bess to play with. But getting the ball out of Broad's hand is not going to be easy.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
By big deal I mean as a news story. It happens all the time so it is very much a slow news day kind of item.
Has Covid killed the Silly Season this year - or will it just be stories of Covid-related silliness?
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Actually it's 'worse' than that. Registering the patent has to be done quite early in the process. Consequently a pharmaceutical company gets, IIRC about half of those 20 to actually recover on it's investment. And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
And even worse if they’re developing a novel antibiotic. Even if it works, policy is to restrict its use as much as possible, so that it can reserves only for cases where current antibiotics no longer work. Which is why most pharmas have abandoned the sector completely.
I did A Level Zoology in 1957. The teacher told us that 'one of these days' we'd run out of antibiotics because developing resistance was what organisms did. He could, at the time cite the recovery of the rabbit population from myxomatosis........no I know rabbits aren't bacteria!
And finding new ways to kill bacteria is what science can do.
Our current predicament has much to do with the mass use of antibiotics in farming, which was one of the more greedy and stupid things that pharmaceutical companies have done.
We're getting less good at finding safe new ways to kill bacteria, And not disagreeing about agricultural antibiotics. Wonderful thing, hindsight.
On the question of a "vaccine", I'm left with a few observations:
1) Like the current flu jab, I presume it will need administering every year?
2) Presumably it will provide no protection to the next substantial mutation to the virus?
3) Will it be made available free to anyone and everyone?
4) It will of course be optional whether you take it though I imagine there will be a "strong recommendation" for certain groups. We've ordered 90 million doses for 67 million people minus those who can't or won't take it.
And yet...we have been persistently told the virus represents little or no risk for the overwhelming majority. Among the youngest 40 million of the population, there have been 500 deaths. I suspect most people in that 40 million do not have an annual flu jab.
5) If you have asymptomatic Covid-19, what does the vaccine do? Does it kill the antibodies or suppress them in some way? The issue for me has never been those like my brother who have had it for months (he is due another test tomorrow - he has never tested negative) but know they have it but those who have it and don't know they have it. Shouldn't vaccination go hand-in-needle with testing?
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
"Come on Eileen" was Dexy's second number one. "Geno" is a far superior record.
"I'm too Sexy" was not a number one - because of Robin Hood. But one of their follow-ups "Deeply Dippy" did make it to number one.
"Come on Eileen" is a marvellous song, strange, clever, poignant, exhilarating
It's also oddly flexible, and can be covered in multiple ways - as jazz, easy listening, country, hard rock - here's a Gaelic version
Strangely, a song my wife and I both detest. Immediate mute if it ever appears. Very few others I can think of (Good Year for the Roses, the Elvis Costello version and stuff by Catatonia spring to mind, but not much else egts my ire.)
Rather more relaxed about their Genome song, however.
According to Alison Weir's Lancaster and York, the House of Lancaster lost.
That would certainly explain why the House of York was succeeded by the Tudors.
Which is why the Duke of Lancaster is Queen and the Duke of York a dirty old man?
The grand old Duke of York who had 10,000 women?
Caught up with the Netflix series about Epstein yesterday. Worth a watch, if only for all the decent folk who come on and make clear liars out of Andy - and Bill Clinton.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
"Come on Eileen" was Dexy's second number one. "Geno" is a far superior record.
"I'm too Sexy" was not a number one - because of Robin Hood. But one of their follow-ups "Deeply Dippy" did make it to number one.
"Come on Eileen" is a marvellous song, strange, clever, poignant, exhilarating
It's also oddly flexible, and can be covered in multiple ways - as jazz, easy listening, country, hard rock - here's a Gaelic version
Strangely, a song my wife and I both detest. Immediate mute if it ever appears. Very few others I can think of (Good Year for the Roses, the Elvis Costello version and stuff by Catatonia spring to mind, but not much else egts my ire.)
Rather more relaxed about their Genome song, however.
Funny thing is, I went through a period of detesting "Eileen", and then one day I heard a cover version - Nouvelle Vague, I think - and I realised I was entirely wrong, it's a work of genius. Lushly complex in its rhythms, harmonies and cadences.
On the question of a "vaccine", I'm left with a few observations:
1) Like the current flu jab, I presume it will need administering every year?
2) Presumably it will provide no protection to the next substantial mutation to the virus?
3) Will it be made available free to anyone and everyone?
4) It will of course be optional whether you take it though I imagine there will be a "strong recommendation" for certain groups. We've ordered 90 million doses for 67 million people minus those who can't or won't take it.
And yet...we have been persistently told the virus represents little or no risk for the overwhelming majority. Among the youngest 40 million of the population, there have been 500 deaths. I suspect most people in that 40 million do not have an annual flu jab.
5) If you have asymptomatic Covid-19, what does the vaccine do? Does it kill the antibodies or suppress them in some way? The issue for me has never been those like my brother who have had it for months (he is due another test tomorrow - he has never tested negative) but know they have it but those who have it and don't know they have it. Shouldn't vaccination go hand-in-needle with testing?
From what I have understood (and I am by no means an expert):
1 - we do not know yet. It depends how long protection lasts. The flu jab is adjusted each year for the most common strains; I don’t think it’s direvtly analogous.
2 - It may well do so. There are some indications that SARS and MERS resistance gives some immunity to Covid. Even that cold coronavirus antibodies may help.
3 - In the UK, I’d say that’s overwhelmingly likely.
This is an amazing and harrowing interview. With a very articulate victim of a grooming gang in Rotherham. She's now a doctor. She speaks calmly, but passionately. It's almost unbearable.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
"Come on Eileen" was Dexy's second number one. "Geno" is a far superior record.
"I'm too Sexy" was not a number one - because of Robin Hood. But one of their follow-ups "Deeply Dippy" did make it to number one.
"Come on Eileen" is a marvellous song, strange, clever, poignant, exhilarating
It's also oddly flexible, and can be covered in multiple ways - as jazz, easy listening, country, hard rock - here's a Gaelic version
Strangely, a song my wife and I both detest. Immediate mute if it ever appears. Very few others I can think of (Good Year for the Roses, the Elvis Costello version and stuff by Catatonia spring to mind, but not much else egts my ire.)
Rather more relaxed about their Genome song, however.
Funny thing is, I went through a period of detesting "Eileen", and then one day I heard a cover version - Nouvelle Vague, I think - and I realised I was entirely wrong, it's a work of genius. Lushly complex in its rhythms, harmonies and cadences.
Chacun a son gout
It's one of those songs that you need a bit of time away from. It is a good tune but has suffered from over-exposure.
I'm not convinced sitting in an environmentally friendly traffic jam is that different from sitting in an environmentally unfriendly one,
Millions of electric cars all going nowhere slowly.
If you don't have the entire population trying to drive into the city in the morning and leave each night.....
Quite but the Government seems oddly determined to get us back commuting and sitting at desks in offices.
I suspect it is getting pressure from three not insignificant groups (and I use the term "not insignificant" in the sense elements within one or more of the groups may be donors to the Conservative Party).
Group One are the transport providers who have had to carry on running Services which were empty and then had to operate at vastly reduced capacity. The end of commuting has robbed them of a big slice of income
Group Two are what I call the Office Service Industries ranging from Pret to the office cleaning companies plus a myriad of other businesses who rely on office workers wanting lunch, keys cut, hair(s) cut, a nice clean phone and desk as well as couriers and other people who travel from office to office.
Group Three is or are the commercial property industry ranging from agents to landlords. With back offices closing or reducing there will be a glut of unwanted office accommodation which no one will want or be able to give away. Even if your firm owns the freehold of the office building, will they want it or need it in the future?
I'm not convinced sitting in an environmentally friendly traffic jam is that different from sitting in an environmentally unfriendly one,
Millions of electric cars all going nowhere slowly.
If you don't have the entire population trying to drive into the city in the morning and leave each night.....
Quite but the Government seems oddly determined to get us back commuting and sitting at desks in offices.
I suspect it is getting pressure from three not insignificant groups (and I use the term "not insignificant" in the sense elements within one or more of the groups may be donors to the Conservative Party).
Group One are the transport providers who have had to carry on running Services which were empty and then had to operate at vastly reduced capacity. The end of commuting has robbed them of a big slice of income
Group Two are what I call the Office Service Industries ranging from Pret to the office cleaning companies plus a myriad of other businesses who rely on office workers wanting lunch, keys cut, hair(s) cut, a nice clean phone and desk as well as couriers and other people who travel from office to office.
Group Three is or are the commercial property industry ranging from agents to landlords. With back offices closing or reducing there will be a glut of unwanted office accommodation which no one will want or be able to give away. Even if your firm owns the freehold of the office building, will they want it or need it in the future?
They are the luddites of the 21st Century.
There is also the trivial matter of millions of people who work in the above businesses.
The Luddites were the workers, not the owners.....
That was very funny! Abbot being shit is nothing whatsoever to do with her being black or being a woman. People sending her abuse for those things need to be stopped and punished. But the vast majority of memes I see mock the fact that she is shit.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
"Come on Eileen" was Dexy's second number one. "Geno" is a far superior record.
"I'm too Sexy" was not a number one - because of Robin Hood. But one of their follow-ups "Deeply Dippy" did make it to number one.
"Come on Eileen" is a marvellous song, strange, clever, poignant, exhilarating
It's also oddly flexible, and can be covered in multiple ways - as jazz, easy listening, country, hard rock - here's a Gaelic version
Strangely, a song my wife and I both detest. Immediate mute if it ever appears. Very few others I can think of (Good Year for the Roses, the Elvis Costello version and stuff by Catatonia spring to mind, but not much else egts my ire.)
Rather more relaxed about their Genome song, however.
Funny thing is, I went through a period of detesting "Eileen", and then one day I heard a cover version - Nouvelle Vague, I think - and I realised I was entirely wrong, it's a work of genius. Lushly complex in its rhythms, harmonies and cadences.
Chacun a son gout
It's one of those songs that you need a bit of time away from. It is a good tune but has suffered from over-exposure.
Yes, that's probably the process. I had the same experience with the Bee Gees. You heard them so much for so many years you switched off. Tedious pop.
Then you hear a song years later - like "How Deep Is Your Love" - and you realise, wow, it's not cheesy pop, it's actually a masterpiece.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
"Come on Eileen" was Dexy's second number one. "Geno" is a far superior record.
"I'm too Sexy" was not a number one - because of Robin Hood. But one of their follow-ups "Deeply Dippy" did make it to number one.
"Come on Eileen" is a marvellous song, strange, clever, poignant, exhilarating
It's also oddly flexible, and can be covered in multiple ways - as jazz, easy listening, country, hard rock - here's a Gaelic version
Strangely, a song my wife and I both detest. Immediate mute if it ever appears. Very few others I can think of (Good Year for the Roses, the Elvis Costello version and stuff by Catatonia spring to mind, but not much else egts my ire.)
Rather more relaxed about their Genome song, however.
Funny thing is, I went through a period of detesting "Eileen", and then one day I heard a cover version - Nouvelle Vague, I think - and I realised I was entirely wrong, it's a work of genius. Lushly complex in its rhythms, harmonies and cadences.
Chacun a son gout
It's one of those songs that you need a bit of time away from. It is a good tune but has suffered from over-exposure.
The baggage of of Kevin and his pals in those dungarees and gym shoes is also quite difficult to discard. Positively Dom-like.
I'm not convinced sitting in an environmentally friendly traffic jam is that different from sitting in an environmentally unfriendly one,
Millions of electric cars all going nowhere slowly.
If you don't have the entire population trying to drive into the city in the morning and leave each night.....
Quite but the Government seems oddly determined to get us back commuting and sitting at desks in offices.
I suspect it is getting pressure from three not insignificant groups (and I use the term "not insignificant" in the sense elements within one or more of the groups may be donors to the Conservative Party).
Group One are the transport providers who have had to carry on running Services which were empty and then had to operate at vastly reduced capacity. The end of commuting has robbed them of a big slice of income
Group Two are what I call the Office Service Industries ranging from Pret to the office cleaning companies plus a myriad of other businesses who rely on office workers wanting lunch, keys cut, hair(s) cut, a nice clean phone and desk as well as couriers and other people who travel from office to office.
Group Three is or are the commercial property industry ranging from agents to landlords. With back offices closing or reducing there will be a glut of unwanted office accommodation which no one will want or be able to give away. Even if your firm owns the freehold of the office building, will they want it or need it in the future?
They are the luddites of the 21st Century.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
The defense of Diane Abbott solely on the grounds of what she was is one of the more misguided bits of UK political nonsense I've seen in recent years.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
"Come on Eileen" was Dexy's second number one. "Geno" is a far superior record.
"I'm too Sexy" was not a number one - because of Robin Hood. But one of their follow-ups "Deeply Dippy" did make it to number one.
"Come on Eileen" is a marvellous song, strange, clever, poignant, exhilarating
It's also oddly flexible, and can be covered in multiple ways - as jazz, easy listening, country, hard rock - here's a Gaelic version
Strangely, a song my wife and I both detest. Immediate mute if it ever appears. Very few others I can think of (Good Year for the Roses, the Elvis Costello version and stuff by Catatonia spring to mind, but not much else egts my ire.)
Rather more relaxed about their Genome song, however.
Funny thing is, I went through a period of detesting "Eileen", and then one day I heard a cover version - Nouvelle Vague, I think - and I realised I was entirely wrong, it's a work of genius. Lushly complex in its rhythms, harmonies and cadences.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
A-ha had no fewer than 18 top 40 hits (and "Take on Me" wasn't even the biggest - it peaked at number two, whereas "The Sun Always Shines on TV" was number one), Soft Cell had twelve, Dexys Midnight Runners had nine, Right Said Fred had seven, Vanilla Ice had four, Baha Men ("Who Let the Dogs Out?") had three,
Only Los del Rio and Toni Basil truly count in your list.
Sure, bands that are a few decades old and weren't megastars are now normally remembered (if at all) for their biggest hit. But that doesn't make them one hit wonders if, at the time, they had a few.
Yes very often 1 hit wonders are strictly speaking not. Turns out they had at least 1 other.
Even the quintessential 1 hit wonder Peter Sarstedt and his lovely "Lovely" had another minor hit with Buy Me 1 More Frozen Orange Juice (on this fantastic day).
It takes something special to have just 1 monster hit and apart from that nada.
Which is why I keep coming back to Dunn and Grandad.
The thing I'd slightly quibble about with Clive Dunn is that, while he technically qualifies as a one hit wonder, Dunn was primarily a popular actor who made a quick foray into the music world.
I'd also only grudgingly include people like Nena (99 Red Balloons) who only had one UK hit but had a decent career in Germany, and ones where the hit was off the back of something else like The Rembrants (I'll Be There For You, the Friends theme).
The more classic one hit wonder, for me, is the journeyman musician who keeps trying both before and after, but only once troubles the chart compilers (and does it in a big way than they do). Someone like Gotye (Somebody That I Used To Know) - multi-platinum, number one in several countries, won Grammy Awards, never came close to that success again - is a good example.
Downing Street in ‘panic mode’ on Union as PM heads for Scotland
The Prime Minister will highlight economic support from the UK Treasury during the crisis, with his government subsidising the wages of nearly a third of Scottish workers.
Mr Johnson’s handling of the pandemic has cost him support, with his net approval rating on the crisis lagging 99 points behind that of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, at -39 points to her +60.
... a Cabinet source told the Sunday Times: “Michael [Gove] is in panic mode about the Union and Boris is in irritated mode.”
... the Press and Journal reported that Lord McInnes, the director of the Scottish Conservative Party, will brief the Cabinet this week alongside polling guru James Kanagasooriam, who worked on the party’s 2016 Holyrood campaign...
It is this transactional Unionist thinking that is killing the Union. England can’t buy Scotland.
Including Don't Knows, Yes is still not over 50% and of course we now know the Indy vote will be split at a Scottish election next year for the first time since 2014
Congratulations , that is the 100th time you have posted that , you win a coconut. You have also won the Title of Most anally retentive halfwitted Moron on PB.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
A-ha had no fewer than 18 top 40 hits (and "Take on Me" wasn't even the biggest - it peaked at number two, whereas "The Sun Always Shines on TV" was number one), Soft Cell had twelve, Dexys Midnight Runners had nine, Right Said Fred had seven, Vanilla Ice had four, Baha Men ("Who Let the Dogs Out?") had three,
Only Los del Rio and Toni Basil truly count in your list.
Sure, bands that are a few decades old and weren't megastars are now normally remembered (if at all) for their biggest hit. But that doesn't make them one hit wonders if, at the time, they had a few.
Yes very often 1 hit wonders are strictly speaking not. Turns out they had at least 1 other.
Even the quintessential 1 hit wonder Peter Sarstedt and his lovely "Lovely" had another minor hit with Buy Me 1 More Frozen Orange Juice (on this fantastic day).
It takes something special to have just 1 monster hit and apart from that nada.
Which is why I keep coming back to Dunn and Grandad.
The thing I'd slightly quibble about with Clive Dunn is that, while he technically qualifies as a one hit wonder, Dunn was primarily a popular actor who made a quick foray into the music world.
I'd also only grudgingly include people like Nena (99 Red Balloons) who only had one UK hit but had a decent career in Germany, and ones where the hit was off the back of something else like The Rembrants (I'll Be There For You, the Friends theme).
The more classic one hit wonder, for me, is the journeyman musician who keeps trying both before and after, but only once troubles the chart compilers (and does it in a big way than they do). Someone like Gotye (Somebody That I Used To Know) - multi-platinum, number one in several countries, won Grammy Awards, never came close to that success again - is a good example.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
A-ha had no fewer than 18 top 40 hits (and "Take on Me" wasn't even the biggest - it peaked at number two, whereas "The Sun Always Shines on TV" was number one), Soft Cell had twelve, Dexys Midnight Runners had nine, Right Said Fred had seven, Vanilla Ice had four, Baha Men ("Who Let the Dogs Out?") had three,
Only Los del Rio and Toni Basil truly count in your list.
Sure, bands that are a few decades old and weren't megastars are now normally remembered (if at all) for their biggest hit. But that doesn't make them one hit wonders if, at the time, they had a few.
Yes very often 1 hit wonders are strictly speaking not. Turns out they had at least 1 other.
Even the quintessential 1 hit wonder Peter Sarstedt and his lovely "Lovely" had another minor hit with Buy Me 1 More Frozen Orange Juice (on this fantastic day).
It takes something special to have just 1 monster hit and apart from that nada.
Which is why I keep coming back to Dunn and Grandad.
The thing I'd slightly quibble about with Clive Dunn is that, while he technically qualifies as a one hit wonder, Dunn was primarily a popular actor who made a quick foray into the music world.
I'd also only grudgingly include people like Nena (99 Red Balloons) who only had one UK hit but had a decent career in Germany, and ones where the hit was off the back of something else like The Rembrants (I'll Be There For You, the Friends theme).
The more classic one hit wonder, for me, is the journeyman musician who keeps trying both before and after, but only once troubles the chart compilers (and does it in a big way than they do). Someone like Gotye (Somebody That I Used To Know) - multi-platinum, number one in several countries, won Grammy Awards, never came close to that success again - is a good example.
Babylon Zoo, Spaceman? I know there were a few follow up singles, but really that was the epitome of a meteor that burned bright for an instant to be followed by a slow, sad disintegration.
The defense of Diane Abbott solely on the grounds of what she was is one of the more misguided bits of UK political nonsense I've seen in recent years.
Early-period Diane Abbott was refreshing, bright and funny. Late period Abbott had either gone downhill rapidly or was a Corbynite too close to power. I suspect the latter consideration prompted much of the abuse, though of course both could well be true.
Downing Street in ‘panic mode’ on Union as PM heads for Scotland
The Prime Minister will highlight economic support from the UK Treasury during the crisis, with his government subsidising the wages of nearly a third of Scottish workers.
Mr Johnson’s handling of the pandemic has cost him support, with his net approval rating on the crisis lagging 99 points behind that of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, at -39 points to her +60.
... a Cabinet source told the Sunday Times: “Michael [Gove] is in panic mode about the Union and Boris is in irritated mode.”
... the Press and Journal reported that Lord McInnes, the director of the Scottish Conservative Party, will brief the Cabinet this week alongside polling guru James Kanagasooriam, who worked on the party’s 2016 Holyrood campaign...
It is this transactional Unionist thinking that is killing the Union. England can’t buy Scotland.
Including Don't Knows, Yes is still not over 50% and of course we now know the Indy vote will be split at a Scottish election next year for the first time since 2014
Downing Street in ‘panic mode’ on Union as PM heads for Scotland
The Prime Minister will highlight economic support from the UK Treasury during the crisis, with his government subsidising the wages of nearly a third of Scottish workers.
Mr Johnson’s handling of the pandemic has cost him support, with his net approval rating on the crisis lagging 99 points behind that of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, at -39 points to her +60.
... a Cabinet source told the Sunday Times: “Michael [Gove] is in panic mode about the Union and Boris is in irritated mode.”
... the Press and Journal reported that Lord McInnes, the director of the Scottish Conservative Party, will brief the Cabinet this week alongside polling guru James Kanagasooriam, who worked on the party’s 2016 Holyrood campaign...
It is this transactional Unionist thinking that is killing the Union. England can’t buy Scotland.
Including Don't Knows, Yes is still not over 50% and of course we now know the Indy vote will be split at a Scottish election next year for the first time since 2014
Congratulations , that is the 100th time you have posted that , you win a coconut. You have also won the Title of Most anally retentive halfwitted Moron on PB.
Babylon Zoo, Spaceman? I know there were a few follow up singles, but really that was the epitome of a meteor that burned bright for an instant to be followed by a slow, sad disintegration.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
£900m was at the last balance sheet date and the world has changed since then
If it is at the most recent balance sheet date it is reasonable and not misleading to use that figure.
It can be misleading
Say as of 12/31 I have £1,000 in my bank account but on 1/4 I wire someone £800 it is misleading to say I have £1,000 in the bank
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
"Come on Eileen" was Dexy's second number one. "Geno" is a far superior record.
"I'm too Sexy" was not a number one - because of Robin Hood. But one of their follow-ups "Deeply Dippy" did make it to number one.
"Come on Eileen" is a marvellous song, strange, clever, poignant, exhilarating
It's also oddly flexible, and can be covered in multiple ways - as jazz, easy listening, country, hard rock - here's a Gaelic version
Strangely, a song my wife and I both detest. Immediate mute if it ever appears. Very few others I can think of (Good Year for the Roses, the Elvis Costello version and stuff by Catatonia spring to mind, but not much else egts my ire.)
Rather more relaxed about their Genome song, however.
Funny thing is, I went through a period of detesting "Eileen", and then one day I heard a cover version - Nouvelle Vague, I think - and I realised I was entirely wrong, it's a work of genius. Lushly complex in its rhythms, harmonies and cadences.
Chacun a son gout
It's one of those songs that you need a bit of time away from. It is a good tune but has suffered from over-exposure.
The baggage of of Kevin and his pals in those dungarees and gym shoes is also quite difficult to discard. Positively Dom-like.
"He looks like he smells" was my mother's take on it.
That was very funny! Abbot being shit is nothing whatsoever to do with her being black or being a woman. People sending her abuse for those things need to be stopped and punished. But the vast majority of memes I see mock the fact that she is shit.
Yes. We should be aware that she undoubtedly suffers racist abuse and take account of that, sympathise with her for that, but if someone does something shit we should not hold off through worry it associates with racists.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
The bus might have been empty because it wasn't in service but otherwise it's a fair point.
What's needed however is not panicked flailing about from Government but a serious conversation and some serious thought about how we are going to work and live in the future.
Most organisations have some sort of back office functions and for larger ones (both public and private) this can involve hundreds of workers. Covid has shown much of this activity isn't location dependent and the huge success that is home Internet access (and that's a real revolution if you want one in terms of progress within a generation) shows business can function perfectly fine without acres of desks in back office warehouses.
It's also created huge numbers of opportunities for the adept entrepreneur. I've a colleague who lives in a Surrey village which, pre-Covid, during the day, was a ghost town as everyone commuted into town. No longer - the shops and cafes are buzzing as home workers go local. Anecdotally, local groups are flourishing as, relieved of a mentally and physically exhausting commute, people now have time for book clubs or amateur dramatics.
It may just be this revolution will revitalise our localities and stop the draw to major urban centres - we'll see.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Actually it's 'worse' than that. Registering the patent has to be done quite early in the process. Consequently a pharmaceutical company gets, IIRC about half of those 20 to actually recover on it's investment. And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
And even worse if they’re developing a novel antibiotic. Even if it works, policy is to restrict its use as much as possible, so that it can reserves only for cases where current antibiotics no longer work. Which is why most pharmas have abandoned the sector completely.
I did A Level Zoology in 1957. The teacher told us that 'one of these days' we'd run out of antibiotics because developing resistance was what organisms did. He could, at the time cite the recovery of the rabbit population from myxomatosis........no I know rabbits aren't bacteria!
Myxi evolves and started killing rabbits in even more horrible ways
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Actually it's 'worse' than that. Registering the patent has to be done quite early in the process. Consequently a pharmaceutical company gets, IIRC about half of those 20 to actually recover on it's investment. And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
And even worse if they’re developing a novel antibiotic. Even if it works, policy is to restrict its use as much as possible, so that it can reserves only for cases where current antibiotics no longer work. Which is why most pharmas have abandoned the sector completely.
You’re reminding me of Ketek and Tygacil
Please don’t do that
*shudders*
Ketek involved fraud, and probably ought never to have been approve, I think ? My point was that even honest companies doing good science tend to be on a hiding to nothing when it comes to developing antibiotics.
Some medical problems require a different model of funding and incentivising research and development.
You should probably make clear that it wasn’t (as far I know) Aventis that was fraudulent.
Although they did claim Sculptra would hit €1bn in sales 😂😂😂
There are pretty good incentives now for antibiotic development
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
A-ha had no fewer than 18 top 40 hits (and "Take on Me" wasn't even the biggest - it peaked at number two, whereas "The Sun Always Shines on TV" was number one), Soft Cell had twelve, Dexys Midnight Runners had nine, Right Said Fred had seven, Vanilla Ice had four, Baha Men ("Who Let the Dogs Out?") had three,
Only Los del Rio and Toni Basil truly count in your list.
Sure, bands that are a few decades old and weren't megastars are now normally remembered (if at all) for their biggest hit. But that doesn't make them one hit wonders if, at the time, they had a few.
Yes very often 1 hit wonders are strictly speaking not. Turns out they had at least 1 other.
Even the quintessential 1 hit wonder Peter Sarstedt and his lovely "Lovely" had another minor hit with Buy Me 1 More Frozen Orange Juice (on this fantastic day).
It takes something special to have just 1 monster hit and apart from that nada.
Which is why I keep coming back to Dunn and Grandad.
The thing I'd slightly quibble about with Clive Dunn is that, while he technically qualifies as a one hit wonder, Dunn was primarily a popular actor who made a quick foray into the music world.
I'd also only grudgingly include people like Nena (99 Red Balloons) who only had one UK hit but had a decent career in Germany, and ones where the hit was off the back of something else like The Rembrants (I'll Be There For You, the Friends theme).
The more classic one hit wonder, for me, is the journeyman musician who keeps trying both before and after, but only once troubles the chart compilers (and does it in a big way than they do). Someone like Gotye (Somebody That I Used To Know) - multi-platinum, number one in several countries, won Grammy Awards, never came close to that success again - is a good example.
It's a good point. I think you're right. No actors. Otherwise it's a Pandora's Box of Lee Marvin Wandering Star, Richard Harris "Park", Savalas and If, that one by Captain Kirk and so on and so forth.
I will not mention Clive Dunn and Grandad again in this context. It's accurate but misleading.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
£900m was at the last balance sheet date and the world has changed since then
... and for a business with lots of staff, physical assets such as shops that need to maintained etc. £900m can evaporate awfully fast.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Actually it's 'worse' than that. Registering the patent has to be done quite early in the process. Consequently a pharmaceutical company gets, IIRC about half of those 20 to actually recover on it's investment. And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
And even worse if they’re developing a novel antibiotic. Even if it works, policy is to restrict its use as much as possible, so that it can reserves only for cases where current antibiotics no longer work. Which is why most pharmas have abandoned the sector completely.
You’re reminding me of Ketek and Tygacil
Please don’t do that
*shudders*
Ketek involved fraud, and probably ought never to have been approve, I think ? My point was that even honest companies doing good science tend to be on a hiding to nothing when it comes to developing antibiotics.
Some medical problems require a different model of funding and incentivising research and development.
You should probably make clear that it wasn’t (as far I know) Aventis that was fraudulent.
Although they did claim Sculptra would hit €1bn in sales 😂😂😂
There are pretty good incentives now for antibiotic development
The prevention of extinction of all human life presumably being in the top 5?
I'm not convinced sitting in an environmentally friendly traffic jam is that different from sitting in an environmentally unfriendly one,
Millions of electric cars all going nowhere slowly.
If you don't have the entire population trying to drive into the city in the morning and leave each night.....
Quite but the Government seems oddly determined to get us back commuting and sitting at desks in offices.
I suspect it is getting pressure from three not insignificant groups (and I use the term "not insignificant" in the sense elements within one or more of the groups may be donors to the Conservative Party).
Group One are the transport providers who have had to carry on running Services which were empty and then had to operate at vastly reduced capacity. The end of commuting has robbed them of a big slice of income
Group Two are what I call the Office Service Industries ranging from Pret to the office cleaning companies plus a myriad of other businesses who rely on office workers wanting lunch, keys cut, hair(s) cut, a nice clean phone and desk as well as couriers and other people who travel from office to office.
Group Three is or are the commercial property industry ranging from agents to landlords. With back offices closing or reducing there will be a glut of unwanted office accommodation which no one will want or be able to give away. Even if your firm owns the freehold of the office building, will they want it or need it in the future?
They are the luddites of the 21st Century.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Many of the people generating the wealth do not live in London and other cities but outside them.
They are still generating plenty of money.
They just aren;t spending it in corbynite big cities run by people who despise them.
I'm not convinced sitting in an environmentally friendly traffic jam is that different from sitting in an environmentally unfriendly one,
Millions of electric cars all going nowhere slowly.
If you don't have the entire population trying to drive into the city in the morning and leave each night.....
Quite but the Government seems oddly determined to get us back commuting and sitting at desks in offices.
I suspect it is getting pressure from three not insignificant groups (and I use the term "not insignificant" in the sense elements within one or more of the groups may be donors to the Conservative Party).
Group One are the transport providers who have had to carry on running Services which were empty and then had to operate at vastly reduced capacity. The end of commuting has robbed them of a big slice of income
Group Two are what I call the Office Service Industries ranging from Pret to the office cleaning companies plus a myriad of other businesses who rely on office workers wanting lunch, keys cut, hair(s) cut, a nice clean phone and desk as well as couriers and other people who travel from office to office.
Group Three is or are the commercial property industry ranging from agents to landlords. With back offices closing or reducing there will be a glut of unwanted office accommodation which no one will want or be able to give away. Even if your firm owns the freehold of the office building, will they want it or need it in the future?
They are the luddites of the 21st Century.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
The irony is the biggest supporters of the lockdown are big city dwellers.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Actually it's 'worse' than that. Registering the patent has to be done quite early in the process. Consequently a pharmaceutical company gets, IIRC about half of those 20 to actually recover on it's investment. And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
And even worse if they’re developing a novel antibiotic. Even if it works, policy is to restrict its use as much as possible, so that it can reserves only for cases where current antibiotics no longer work. Which is why most pharmas have abandoned the sector completely.
I did A Level Zoology in 1957. The teacher told us that 'one of these days' we'd run out of antibiotics because developing resistance was what organisms did. He could, at the time cite the recovery of the rabbit population from myxomatosis........no I know rabbits aren't bacteria!
And finding new ways to kill bacteria is what science can do.
Our current predicament has much to do with the mass use of antibiotics in farming, which was one of the more greedy and stupid things that pharmaceutical companies have done.
There not that much evidence of cross species resistance. In any event in Europe the use of antibiotics as growth promotors was banned in the mid 90s
The "Sex dwarf" video by Soft Cell is out there on the internet, found it just now - certainly not one to search out on a work PC or whilst in the office though ! You can see why it's still banned.
From what I have understood (and I am by no means an expert):
1 - we do not know yet. It depends how long protection lasts. The flu jab is adjusted each year for the most common strains; I don’t think it’s direvtly analogous.
2 - It may well do so. There are some indications that SARS and MERS resistance gives some immunity to Covid. Even that cold coronavirus antibodies may help.
3 - In the UK, I’d say that’s overwhelmingly likely.
4 - do not know
5 - Likely to provide some benefit,
I can't imagine Covid-19 "going away" completely but could re-appear periodically in a weaker form along with the other flu viruses. I also imagine there will still be plenty of "colds" out there whatever.
As an aside, I still post periodically on alternatehistory.com but all the young (Americans I imagine) seem obsessed with military hardware and weapons systems. Give them a good old British political TL and they don't have a clue.
I'm musing on a 2015 Hung Parliament scenario - wouldn't need a lot of changes in votes to make it happen. One consequence of course is no EU Referendum in 2016.
EU integration can both accelerate and deepen without the Inselaffen fucking things up.
As Orwell correctly observed, the sole political goal worth pursuing is a socialist United States of Europe.
Surely not? I thought Orwell's entire contemporary relevance is to justify gammons using dodgy expressions on twitter (the term 'gammon' being the exception of course).
Orwell's contemporary relevance includes causing lefties to start getting upset when people use his works to point out that some ideas were bad the first 27 times they were tried.
And that their failure was dissected and explained in said books.
Anyone who thinks that has plainly not read much Orwell!
He opposed Stalinism and Communism but was happy with Trotskyism and Anarcho-Syndacalism.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
The “average”, or mean voltage of both is zero as they both alternate positive and negative. The root mean square or RMS values are about 230V and 120V though: plugging in equipment meant for the US in a UK plug without precautions can end up with a loud bang and/or fire...
I can explain RMS if you like, but it’s a ten minute lesson with diagrams.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
A-ha had no fewer than 18 top 40 hits (and "Take on Me" wasn't even the biggest - it peaked at number two, whereas "The Sun Always Shines on TV" was number one), Soft Cell had twelve, Dexys Midnight Runners had nine, Right Said Fred had seven, Vanilla Ice had four, Baha Men ("Who Let the Dogs Out?") had three,
Only Los del Rio and Toni Basil truly count in your list.
Sure, bands that are a few decades old and weren't megastars are now normally remembered (if at all) for their biggest hit. But that doesn't make them one hit wonders if, at the time, they had a few.
Yes very often 1 hit wonders are strictly speaking not. Turns out they had at least 1 other.
Even the quintessential 1 hit wonder Peter Sarstedt and his lovely "Lovely" had another minor hit with Buy Me 1 More Frozen Orange Juice (on this fantastic day).
It takes something special to have just 1 monster hit and apart from that nada.
Which is why I keep coming back to Dunn and Grandad.
The thing I'd slightly quibble about with Clive Dunn is that, while he technically qualifies as a one hit wonder, Dunn was primarily a popular actor who made a quick foray into the music world.
I'd also only grudgingly include people like Nena (99 Red Balloons) who only had one UK hit but had a decent career in Germany, and ones where the hit was off the back of something else like The Rembrants (I'll Be There For You, the Friends theme).
The more classic one hit wonder, for me, is the journeyman musician who keeps trying both before and after, but only once troubles the chart compilers (and does it in a big way than they do). Someone like Gotye (Somebody That I Used To Know) - multi-platinum, number one in several countries, won Grammy Awards, never came close to that success again - is a good example.
Why should ordinary people be made to work in giant cities whose governments often dislike them and do not make the surroundings a welcoming place for them?
Look at London. Congestion charge, extinction rebellion protests, knife crime, tube strikes, train strikes, massive crossrail delays, anti-uber legislature, rubbish strewn streets - to name but a few.
You can stop preaching to me Khan, and start competing for my business sunshine.
What are you going to do to make London more pleasant for me to work in?
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
How can something be accurate but misleading?
“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...
Why is it misleading?
Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.
Small children would be able to work out immediately that if even one person has one leg then it is true and not misleading. If a tadge smartarse.
OK, a better one. Both UK and US mains have the same average voltage. Both true and very misleading.
Oh blimey.
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
The “average”, or mean voltage of both is zero as they both alternate positive and negative. The root mean square or RMS values are about 230V and 120V though: plugging in equipment meant for the US in a UK plug without precautions can end up with a loud bang and/or fire...
I can explain RMS if you like, but it’s a ten minute lesson with diagrams.
On the question of a "vaccine", I'm left with a few observations:
1) Like the current flu jab, I presume it will need administering every year?
2) Presumably it will provide no protection to the next substantial mutation to the virus?
3) Will it be made available free to anyone and everyone?
4) It will of course be optional whether you take it though I imagine there will be a "strong recommendation" for certain groups. We've ordered 90 million doses for 67 million people minus those who can't or won't take it.
And yet...we have been persistently told the virus represents little or no risk for the overwhelming majority. Among the youngest 40 million of the population, there have been 500 deaths. I suspect most people in that 40 million do not have an annual flu jab.
5) If you have asymptomatic Covid-19, what does the vaccine do? Does it kill the antibodies or suppress them in some way? The issue for me has never been those like my brother who have had it for months (he is due another test tomorrow - he has never tested negative) but know they have it but those who have it and don't know they have it. Shouldn't vaccination go hand-in-needle with testing?
1) all vaccines need boosters as immunity wears off. But flu is atypical in that it is a new strain every year hence the need for a new vaccination
2) likely not, although you do get cross strain protection with many viruses
3) I’d expect so, or at least paid for by the NHS
4) We’ve ordered multiple different vaccines. Assuming BioNTech works and nothing else dies we only have 30m doses for delivery in 2020/21. I’d assume at that point you’d start with 50+ and vulnerable groups. If Valneva works then you can do everyone
5) vaccines create antibodies not kill them. It doesn’t matter if someone has it already. But it would make sense to test at the same time while someone is under medical supervision. You’ve gone to all the effort of getting them there.
A big red bus just went past my study window. North London. Completely empty. Not a single passenger. In the middle of a working day.
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Actually it's 'worse' than that. Registering the patent has to be done quite early in the process. Consequently a pharmaceutical company gets, IIRC about half of those 20 to actually recover on it's investment. And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
And even worse if they’re developing a novel antibiotic. Even if it works, policy is to restrict its use as much as possible, so that it can reserves only for cases where current antibiotics no longer work. Which is why most pharmas have abandoned the sector completely.
You’re reminding me of Ketek and Tygacil
Please don’t do that
*shudders*
Ketek involved fraud, and probably ought never to have been approve, I think ? My point was that even honest companies doing good science tend to be on a hiding to nothing when it comes to developing antibiotics.
Some medical problems require a different model of funding and incentivising research and development.
You should probably make clear that it wasn’t (as far I know) Aventis that was fraudulent...
I didn't even mention them; the fraud itself, which was not theirs, appears well documented, so there's no need to rehearse the details.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
"Come on Eileen" was Dexy's second number one. "Geno" is a far superior record.
"I'm too Sexy" was not a number one - because of Robin Hood. But one of their follow-ups "Deeply Dippy" did make it to number one.
"Come on Eileen" is a marvellous song, strange, clever, poignant, exhilarating
It's also oddly flexible, and can be covered in multiple ways - as jazz, easy listening, country, hard rock - here's a Gaelic version
Strangely, a song my wife and I both detest. Immediate mute if it ever appears. Very few others I can think of (Good Year for the Roses, the Elvis Costello version and stuff by Catatonia spring to mind, but not much else egts my ire.)
Rather more relaxed about their Genome song, however.
Funny thing is, I went through a period of detesting "Eileen", and then one day I heard a cover version - Nouvelle Vague, I think - and I realised I was entirely wrong, it's a work of genius. Lushly complex in its rhythms, harmonies and cadences.
Chacun a son gout
It's one of those songs that you need a bit of time away from. It is a good tune but has suffered from over-exposure.
The baggage of of Kevin and his pals in those dungarees and gym shoes is also quite difficult to discard. Positively Dom-like.
"He looks like he smells" was my mother's take on it.
Jimmies (what we called those type of gym shoes when I were a lad) without socks, smelly for sure.
Never let it be said that Kevin Rowlands was afraid to go full bloodedly for a look.
Comments
And that their failure was dissected and explained in said books.
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1284969561243213825
https://twitter.com/wtfrench76/status/1285120804498345984
Rapper Kanye West, in his first event since declaring himself a presidential candidate, ranted against historical figure Harriet Tubman on Sunday, saying the Underground Railroad conductor “never actually freed the slaves, she just had them work for other white people,” comments that drew shouts of opposition from some in the crowd...
"More a mascot than a commander"
All he has to do is wear a silly hat and Twitter goes wild.
It'll be his answer to everything now.
Oh, wait...
Please don’t do that
*shudders*
He's been sent to the Jimmy Savile salt mines, never to be heard of again. Almost Orwellian..
The only example I can think of, which is hardly a matter of national import, is those amusing edited theatre reviews. Now banned I see, by the EU of all things.
He could, at the time cite the recovery of the rabbit population from myxomatosis........no I know rabbits aren't bacteria!
My point was that even honest companies doing good science tend to be on a hiding to nothing when it comes to developing antibiotics.
Some medical problems require a different model of funding and incentivising research and development.
i.e. send an identical hat to a range of prominent people round the world.
This was a very small trial (101 patients), with two deaths in the control arm, and none among those treated with the interferon. Very promising, but you need a bigger trial, and long term follow up to be certain.
Some way to go yet (though they say they will have manufacturing for 100k doses per month by 'winter').
Millions of electric cars all going nowhere slowly.
Our current predicament has much to do with the mass use of antibiotics in farming, which was one of the more greedy and stupid things that pharmaceutical companies have done.
It's also oddly flexible, and can be covered in multiple ways - as jazz, easy listening, country, hard rock - here's a Gaelic version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDKR-z2dYlk
a marching band in America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrvclPaPHyQ
rather sweet solo guitar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg_jN761rhk
Wonderful thing, hindsight.
1) Like the current flu jab, I presume it will need administering every year?
2) Presumably it will provide no protection to the next substantial mutation to the virus?
3) Will it be made available free to anyone and everyone?
4) It will of course be optional whether you take it though I imagine there will be a "strong recommendation" for certain groups. We've ordered 90 million doses for 67 million people minus those who can't or won't take it.
And yet...we have been persistently told the virus represents little or no risk for the overwhelming majority. Among the youngest 40 million of the population, there have been 500 deaths. I suspect most people in that 40 million do not have an annual flu jab.
5) If you have asymptomatic Covid-19, what does the vaccine do? Does it kill the antibodies or suppress them in some way? The issue for me has never been those like my brother who have had it for months (he is due another test tomorrow - he has never tested negative) but know they have it but those who have it and don't know they have it. Shouldn't vaccination go hand-in-needle with testing?
"Les sanglots longs, Des violons, De l'automne"
Rather more relaxed about their Genome song, however.
Caught up with the Netflix series about Epstein yesterday. Worth a watch, if only for all the decent folk who come on and make clear liars out of Andy - and Bill Clinton.
Chacun a son gout
1 - we do not know yet. It depends how long protection lasts. The flu jab is adjusted each year for the most common strains; I don’t think it’s direvtly analogous.
2 - It may well do so. There are some indications that SARS and MERS resistance gives some immunity to Covid. Even that cold coronavirus antibodies may help.
3 - In the UK, I’d say that’s overwhelmingly likely.
4 - do not know
5 - Likely to provide some benefit,
"Up top 500,000 victims" over the last 40 years.
It's a monumental crime. The worst of our era?
https://twitter.com/triggerpod/status/1285178494939475968?s=20
It's very long and meanders a bit, but the first 30 minutes is chilling and sufficient
I suspect it is getting pressure from three not insignificant groups (and I use the term "not insignificant" in the sense elements within one or more of the groups may be donors to the Conservative Party).
Group One are the transport providers who have had to carry on running Services which were empty and then had to operate at vastly reduced capacity. The end of commuting has robbed them of a big slice of income
Group Two are what I call the Office Service Industries ranging from Pret to the office cleaning companies plus a myriad of other businesses who rely on office workers wanting lunch, keys cut, hair(s) cut, a nice clean phone and desk as well as couriers and other people who travel from office to office.
Group Three is or are the commercial property industry ranging from agents to landlords. With back offices closing or reducing there will be a glut of unwanted office accommodation which no one will want or be able to give away. Even if your firm owns the freehold of the office building, will they want it or need it in the future?
They are the luddites of the 21st Century.
The Luddites were the workers, not the owners.....
Then you hear a song years later - like "How Deep Is Your Love" - and you realise, wow, it's not cheesy pop, it's actually a masterpiece.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpqqjU7u5Yc
I know I've said it before, but I will say it again: London is collapsing from the inside out. London, which provides a quarter of all the UK's taxes. Similar scenes must be happening in Leeds, Manc, Glasgow, Edinburgh.
We are staring into the abyss. We need to get Britain's big cities moving again, even if it is only half speed.
Good work flagging it up, Mx Mendoza
https://www.stereogum.com/2090493/the-number-ones-dexys-midnight-runners-come-on-eileen/franchises/columns/the-number-ones/
I'd also only grudgingly include people like Nena (99 Red Balloons) who only had one UK hit but had a decent career in Germany, and ones where the hit was off the back of something else like The Rembrants (I'll Be There For You, the Friends theme).
The more classic one hit wonder, for me, is the journeyman musician who keeps trying both before and after, but only once troubles the chart compilers (and does it in a big way than they do). Someone like Gotye (Somebody That I Used To Know) - multi-platinum, number one in several countries, won Grammy Awards, never came close to that success again - is a good example.
You have also won the Title of Most anally retentive halfwitted Moron on PB.
Say as of 12/31 I have £1,000 in my bank account but on 1/4 I wire someone £800 it is misleading to say I have £1,000 in the bank
Look I'm sure there are obscure, or obtuse examples where something is true and misleading (please explain the voltage thing to me). But generally not reported in the FT, say.
What's needed however is not panicked flailing about from Government but a serious conversation and some serious thought about how we are going to work and live in the future.
Most organisations have some sort of back office functions and for larger ones (both public and private) this can involve hundreds of workers. Covid has shown much of this activity isn't location dependent and the huge success that is home Internet access (and that's a real revolution if you want one in terms of progress within a generation) shows business can function perfectly fine without acres of desks in back office warehouses.
It's also created huge numbers of opportunities for the adept entrepreneur. I've a colleague who lives in a Surrey village which, pre-Covid, during the day, was a ghost town as everyone commuted into town. No longer - the shops and cafes are buzzing as home workers go local. Anecdotally, local groups are flourishing as, relieved of a mentally and physically exhausting commute, people now have time for book clubs or amateur dramatics.
It may just be this revolution will revitalise our localities and stop the draw to major urban centres - we'll see.
Although they did claim Sculptra would hit €1bn in sales 😂😂😂
There are pretty good incentives now for antibiotic development
I will not mention Clive Dunn and Grandad again in this context. It's accurate but misleading.
They are still generating plenty of money.
They just aren;t spending it in corbynite big cities run by people who despise them.
You can see why it's still banned.
As an aside, I still post periodically on alternatehistory.com but all the young (Americans I imagine) seem obsessed with military hardware and weapons systems. Give them a good old British political TL and they don't have a clue.
I'm musing on a 2015 Hung Parliament scenario - wouldn't need a lot of changes in votes to make it happen. One consequence of course is no EU Referendum in 2016.
He opposed Stalinism and Communism but was happy with Trotskyism and Anarcho-Syndacalism.
https://twitter.com/TeleProperty/status/1285146494392250369
I can explain RMS if you like, but it’s a ten minute lesson with diagrams.
The Darkness.
Look at London. Congestion charge, extinction rebellion protests, knife crime, tube strikes, train strikes, massive crossrail delays, anti-uber legislature, rubbish strewn streets - to name but a few.
You can stop preaching to me Khan, and start competing for my business sunshine.
What are you going to do to make London more pleasant for me to work in?
2) likely not, although you do get cross strain protection with many viruses
3) I’d expect so, or at least paid for by the NHS
4) We’ve ordered multiple different vaccines. Assuming BioNTech works and nothing else dies we only have 30m doses for delivery in 2020/21. I’d assume at that point you’d start with 50+ and vulnerable groups. If Valneva works then you can do everyone
5) vaccines create antibodies not kill them. It doesn’t matter if someone has it already. But it would make sense to test at the same time while someone is under medical supervision. You’ve gone to all the effort of getting them there.
...There are pretty good incentives now for antibiotic development.
There are incentives, but they remain problematic.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0300-y
Never let it be said that Kevin Rowlands was afraid to go full bloodedly for a look.