Sack him. This isn’t a choice any more. If you work for the BBC, you don’t get a profile on social media, and you don’t express opinions. If you want to do that, create a new profile with a pseudonym or whatever, do not mention your BBC job, and you can say what you like. What’s the problem?
Gary Lineker has done enormous damage to the corporation that pays him millions.
The new director general clearly sees the existential threat to the Beeb. Good for him. But I fear it is too late. The BBC is doomed. Slain by Twitter
But I still think Jon Ossoff to win Georgia Senate at 2/1 when he's leading in all the recent polls with real momentum and a fading opponent is a stonking value bet.
Hi opponent , Perdue has just pulled out from the final debate to attend a Trump rally on Sunday instead . Very risky move , could go either way .
Very risky, and imho foolish. Republicans from Trump down are finding they've shrunk their base and put off Ind/swing voters. They need to get Lean Rs to stick with the party they are wavering on, not double down on the core vote.
Perhaps Perdue & his advisors have an all-too-realistic view of his debating prowess?
Ohio simply has to be the ultimate bellwether state, evidenced by the fact that in the 31 General Elections since 1896, it has only twice (in 1944 and 1960) failed to vote for the winning candidate, meaning that it has backed the winner unerringly over the past 56 years! Furthermore, no Republican has ever won the Presidency without winning Ohio. Against such a background, it is interesting to note that despite the betting markets having Trump as the clear favourite to win this state with Betfair Exchange at current net odds of 1.40, Biden, shown in the most recent polls as having a clear lead, has to be the value bet at 3.09 not only to land the state but to continue its startling record of correctly backing the winner over a consecutive period of 60 years. Show me a better U.S. Election bet offering odds of better than 2/1! As ever, DYOR.
All bellwethers crack eventually, we hear little about Missouri these days as it has now become reliably Republican.
The thing about Texas trending Democrat is that somewhere else has to trend Republican to compensate. Ohio seems like one of those places.
Big picture. And very approximate. South and West trending Dem. North and East trending Rep. South and West have fast growing populations.
Ohio simply has to be the ultimate bellwether state, evidenced by the fact that in the 31 General Elections since 1896, it has only twice (in 1944 and 1960) failed to vote for the winning candidate, meaning that it has backed the winner unerringly over the past 56 years! Furthermore, no Republican has ever won the Presidency without winning Ohio. Against such a background, it is interesting to note that despite the betting markets having Trump as the clear favourite to win this state with Betfair Exchange at current net odds of 1.40, Biden, shown in the most recent polls as having a clear lead, has to be the value bet at 3.09 not only to land the state but to continue its startling record of correctly backing the winner over a consecutive period of 60 years. Show me a better U.S. Election bet offering odds of better than 2/1! As ever, DYOR.
All bellwethers crack eventually, we hear little about Missouri these days as it has now become reliably Republican.
The thing about Texas trending Democrat is that somewhere else has to trend Republican to compensate. Ohio seems like one of those places.
American Red and Blue states are much more fluid than Red and Blue seats at Westminster. Indeed remarkably so, and hard to see why that should suddenly stop.
Sack him. This isn’t a choice any more. If you work for the BBC, you don’t get a profile on social media, and you don’t express opinions. If you want to do that, create a new profile with a pseudonym or whatever, do not mention your BBC job, and you can say what you like. What’s the problem?
Gary Lineker has done enormous damage to the corporation that pays him millions.
The new director general clearly sees the existential threat to the Beeb. Good for him. But I fear it is too late. The BBC is doomed. Slain by Twitter
The management are going to have to back down or they will be having employees up for disciplinaries every day on this issue. There is no way that a) they be able to not express opinions that could be deemed in breach and b) insist to be able to do so.
"Thanks for condolences SeaShanty, ydoethur and others.
Strangely Trump came up independently of the family revelation (that was at the funeral meats). My uncle was a Liberal Unionist who loathed Brexit and Trump, and his son, my cousin, in his tribute brought up Trump as the polar opposite of of the person that was my uncle. Weird how politics crops up.
The Isle Lewis has it's own sort of rascals who are not really brashly Trumpian, more Odysseus the Trickster types. This is a good example, an interesting story even if you're not a Lewisman I think."
Looking at the map, I see that the "Isle" of Lewis is NOT an island - sounds pretty Trumpian to me!
The one thing that Harrismen and Lewismen (& Harriswomen & Lewiswomen) agree on is that they're separate entities!
Am NOT challenging that (says proud owner of a Harris Tweed hacking jacket manufactured in 1984).
But calling yerself an island when you clearly ain't - THAT's pure Trumpsky!
Ahem, Rhode Island, ahem.
NOTE that there IS in fact a Rhode Island in the State of Rhode Island AND Providence Plantations!
So, sir or madam or who knows (as the case may be) please withdraw your aspersions upon the good folk of the Ocean State!! Or risk meeting the ghost of Roger Williams on some dark and stormy night!!!
OR even worse, some gnarled old Sicilian lady from Pawtucket will mutter an ancient curse AND give you her evil eye!!!!
No sir, there is not, or at least not an island you can point to or stand on and say "this is the original Rhode Island". Aquidneck Island, the island where Newport is located, was certainly called that after settlement began, but it is by no means certain that it is the original island with that epithet. It's not even certain who coined the name, let alone which island was meant. It was either Verrazzano in 1524 who saw an island he felt looked like Rhodes in the Mediterranean, or Block in 1614 who passed a "reddish island" (Dutch Rood eiland) but any Rhode Island native like my wife will tell you that it's only likely to have been Aquidneck. It could have been Block Island, or even (whisper it) Long Island itself.
BTW, any PBers who can find a bookie stupid enough to offer odds that Rhode Islanders will vote on Tuesday to remove the "and Providence Plantations" part of the state's name should take that bet. The only real question is by how high a margin it will be defeated (at least 70/30 my wife reckons). RI does not do "woke". For instance it's the only state that still commemorates VJ-Day as a state holiday.
I sit partially corrected. Especially as you have your very own native guide!
WHY would they want to do away with the Plantations? It's so cool!
One thing I do know about RI, is that folks think they are taking a LONG trip if they drive 30 miles to the beach. And an outing to Block Island is a expedition.
Please tell you good wife that yours truly has not one, not two, but THREE models of Rhode Island lighthouses:
> Block Island Southest > Point Judith > Pomham Island/Rocks
"Thanks for condolences SeaShanty, ydoethur and others.
Strangely Trump came up independently of the family revelation (that was at the funeral meats). My uncle was a Liberal Unionist who loathed Brexit and Trump, and his son, my cousin, in his tribute brought up Trump as the polar opposite of of the person that was my uncle. Weird how politics crops up.
The Isle Lewis has it's own sort of rascals who are not really brashly Trumpian, more Odysseus the Trickster types. This is a good example, an interesting story even if you're not a Lewisman I think."
Looking at the map, I see that the "Isle" of Lewis is NOT an island - sounds pretty Trumpian to me!
The one thing that Harrismen and Lewismen (& Harriswomen & Lewiswomen) agree on is that they're separate entities!
Am NOT challenging that (says proud owner of a Harris Tweed hacking jacket manufactured in 1984).
But calling yerself an island when you clearly ain't - THAT's pure Trumpsky!
Ahem, Rhode Island, ahem.
NOTE that there IS in fact a Rhode Island in the State of Rhode Island AND Providence Plantations!
So, sir or madam or who knows (as the case may be) please withdraw your aspersions upon the good folk of the Ocean State!! Or risk meeting the ghost of Roger Williams on some dark and stormy night!!!
OR even worse, some gnarled old Sicilian lady from Pawtucket will mutter an ancient curse AND give you her evil eye!!!!
No sir, there is not, or at least not an island you can point to or stand on and say "this is the original Rhode Island". Aquidneck Island, the island where Newport is located, was certainly called that after settlement began, but it is by no means certain that it is the original island with that epithet. It's not even certain who coined the name, let alone which island was meant. It was either Verrazzano in 1524 who saw an island he felt looked like Rhodes in the Mediterranean, or Block in 1614 who passed a "reddish island" (Dutch Rood eiland) but any Rhode Island native like my wife will tell you that it's only likely to have been Aquidneck. It could have been Block Island, or even (whisper it) Long Island itself.
BTW, any PBers who can find a bookie stupid enough to offer odds that Rhode Islanders will vote on Tuesday to remove the "and Providence Plantations" part of the state's name should take that bet. The only real question is by how high a margin it will be defeated (at least 70/30 my wife reckons). RI does not do "woke". For instance it's the only state that still commemorates VJ-Day as a state holiday.
I sit partially corrected. Especially as you have your very own native guide!
WHY would they want to do away with the Plantations? It's so cool!
One thing I do know about RI, is that folks think they are taking a LONG trip if they drive 30 miles to the beach. And an outing to Block Island is a expedition.
Please tell you good wife that yours truly has not one, not two, but THREE models of Rhode Island lighthouses:
> Block Island Southest > Point Judith > Pomham Island/Rocks
30 miles is a long drive surely?
Maybe in UK. Or in Delaware. But NOT in 48 of 50 states.
Where many folks would think nothing of driving (pre-COVID) 30 miles there AND back for Sunday brunch.
Sack him. This isn’t a choice any more. If you work for the BBC, you don’t get a profile on social media, and you don’t express opinions. If you want to do that, create a new profile with a pseudonym or whatever, do not mention your BBC job, and you can say what you like. What’s the problem?
Gary Lineker has done enormous damage to the corporation that pays him millions.
The new director general clearly sees the existential threat to the Beeb. Good for him. But I fear it is too late. The BBC is doomed. Slain by Twitter
Good job Andrew Neill jumped ship in time. Coincidence?
I have to say that having driven in Paris including on the extraordinary peripherique I can't see an awful lot different to a normal Parisian rush hour.
Especially coming up to the Toussaint weekend, which is always busy.
Sack him. This isn’t a choice any more. If you work for the BBC, you don’t get a profile on social media, and you don’t express opinions. If you want to do that, create a new profile with a pseudonym or whatever, do not mention your BBC job, and you can say what you like. What’s the problem?
Gary Lineker has done enormous damage to the corporation that pays him millions.
The new director general clearly sees the existential threat to the Beeb. Good for him. But I fear it is too late. The BBC is doomed. Slain by Twitter
The management are going to have to back down or they will be having employees up for disciplinaries every day on this issue. There is no way that a) they be able to not express opinions that could be deemed in breach and b) insist to be able to do so.
Dunno the law. Perhaps, perhaps not. But the new DG is absolutely right in essence. No BBC employee should express any political opinion on social media. It’s bloody obvious. Because the frail national consensus that underpins the licence fee - a poll tax, remember - will fall apart if consumers think they are being lectured and criticized by the people they, with their taxes, employ
If you’re that desperate to talk politics on Twitter, set up a new account, use a pseudonym, don’t trade on your BBC status. Then you can have as much free speech as you like
The fact BBC journos refuse, or are too stupid, to understand this, is, I fear, a suicide note for the whole shebang
Sack him. This isn’t a choice any more. If you work for the BBC, you don’t get a profile on social media, and you don’t express opinions. If you want to do that, create a new profile with a pseudonym or whatever, do not mention your BBC job, and you can say what you like. What’s the problem?
Gary Lineker has done enormous damage to the corporation that pays him millions.
The new director general clearly sees the existential threat to the Beeb. Good for him. But I fear it is too late. The BBC is doomed. Slain by Twitter
The management are going to have to back down or they will be having employees up for disciplinaries every day on this issue. There is no way that a) they be able to not express opinions that could be deemed in breach and b) insist to be able to do so.
Dunno the law. Perhaps, perhaps not. But the new DG is absolutely right in essence. No BBC employee should express any political opinion on social media. It’s bloody obvious. Because the frail national consensus that underpins the licence fee - a poll tax, remember - will fall apart if consumers think they are being lectured and criticized by the people they, with their taxes, employ
If you’re that desperate to talk politics on Twitter, set up a new account, use a pseudonym, don’t trade on your BBC status. Then you can have as much free speech as you like
The fact BBC journos refuse, or are too stupid, to understand this, is, I fear, a suicide note for the whole shebang
As I have said previously, there is a bigger elephant in the room than this. Young people don't watch it, old aren't on twitter and certainly don't see the world the way twitter does in terms of how important certain issues are, and for the middle aged the likes of Netflix is super popular and in the modern age is totally weird idea that you have to pay the telly tax to watch footy on Sky.....and it is all totally unenforceable.
And the new DG doesn't see the issue with the telly tax, instead engaging in all this stuff about what employees are banned from doing.
Sack him. This isn’t a choice any more. If you work for the BBC, you don’t get a profile on social media, and you don’t express opinions. If you want to do that, create a new profile with a pseudonym or whatever, do not mention your BBC job, and you can say what you like. What’s the problem?
Gary Lineker has done enormous damage to the corporation that pays him millions.
The new director general clearly sees the existential threat to the Beeb. Good for him. But I fear it is too late. The BBC is doomed. Slain by Twitter
The management are going to have to back down or they will be having employees up for disciplinaries every day on this issue. There is no way that a) they be able to not express opinions that could be deemed in breach and b) insist to be able to do so.
Dunno the law. Perhaps, perhaps not. But the new DG is absolutely right in essence. No BBC employee should express any political opinion on social media. It’s bloody obvious. Because the frail national consensus that underpins the licence fee - a poll tax, remember - will fall apart if consumers think they are being lectured and criticized by the people they, with their taxes, employ
If you’re that desperate to talk politics on Twitter, set up a new account, use a pseudonym, don’t trade on your BBC status. Then you can have as much free speech as you like
The fact BBC journos refuse, or are too stupid, to understand this, is, I fear, a suicide note for the whole shebang
As I have said previously, there is a bigger elephant in the room than this. Young people don't watch it, old aren't on twitter and certainly don't see the world the way twitter does in terms of how important certain issues are, and for the middle aged the likes of Netflix is super popular and in the modern age is totally weird idea that you have to pay the telly tax to watch footy on Sky.....and it is all totally unenforceable.
And the new DG doesn't see the issue with the telly tax, instead engaging in all this stuff about what employees are banned from doing.
Two different issues. You’re quite right that the BBC licence fee model is doomed anyway. I give it a decade max.
My point is that the BBC as an institution is generating immediate resentment from many sides, by allowing its journalists to spout personal opinions on social media AS bbc journos. It annoys many. Not just English Tories. See the Scot Nats who want the BBC cancelled.
If the bbc Is to have any chance of surviving it has to solve this immediate problem first. So it can get a decent hearing when it pleads for a new funding model in 5-10 years time.
Sack him. This isn’t a choice any more. If you work for the BBC, you don’t get a profile on social media, and you don’t express opinions. If you want to do that, create a new profile with a pseudonym or whatever, do not mention your BBC job, and you can say what you like. What’s the problem?
Gary Lineker has done enormous damage to the corporation that pays him millions.
The new director general clearly sees the existential threat to the Beeb. Good for him. But I fear it is too late. The BBC is doomed. Slain by Twitter
The management are going to have to back down or they will be having employees up for disciplinaries every day on this issue. There is no way that a) they be able to not express opinions that could be deemed in breach and b) insist to be able to do so.
Dunno the law. Perhaps, perhaps not. But the new DG is absolutely right in essence. No BBC employee should express any political opinion on social media. It’s bloody obvious. Because the frail national consensus that underpins the licence fee - a poll tax, remember - will fall apart if consumers think they are being lectured and criticized by the people they, with their taxes, employ
If you’re that desperate to talk politics on Twitter, set up a new account, use a pseudonym, don’t trade on your BBC status. Then you can have as much free speech as you like
The fact BBC journos refuse, or are too stupid, to understand this, is, I fear, a suicide note for the whole shebang
As I have said previously, there is a bigger elephant in the room than this. Young people don't watch it, old aren't on twitter and certainly don't see the world the way twitter does in terms of how important certain issues are, and for the middle aged the likes of Netflix is super popular and in the modern age is totally weird idea that you have to pay the telly tax to watch footy on Sky.....and it is all totally unenforceable.
And the new DG doesn't see the issue with the telly tax, instead engaging in all this stuff about what employees are banned from doing.
Precisely.
The Beeboids being on Twitter simply let's them share their views and those views will still be influencing what they produce for the Beeb whether they're on Twitter or not.
But the TV tax is the real issue. The Beeb being a pale imitation of Netflix is the problem.
My children primarily watch YouTube, Netflix and Disney. They watch more Channel 5 (Peppa Pig) than BBC. Whole generations of people are finding they have nothing to watch on the BBC and yet are taxed to pay for it. And Twitter is a meaningless distraction compared to that.
I used to love Match of the Day but haven't watched it now in many years, not because of anything Linekar said on Twitter but as I can get all the highlights on YouTube hours before they appear on Match of the Day so what's the point of that as we get into the middle of the twenty first century?
Sack him. This isn’t a choice any more. If you work for the BBC, you don’t get a profile on social media, and you don’t express opinions. If you want to do that, create a new profile with a pseudonym or whatever, do not mention your BBC job, and you can say what you like. What’s the problem?
Gary Lineker has done enormous damage to the corporation that pays him millions.
The new director general clearly sees the existential threat to the Beeb. Good for him. But I fear it is too late. The BBC is doomed. Slain by Twitter
The management are going to have to back down or they will be having employees up for disciplinaries every day on this issue. There is no way that a) they be able to not express opinions that could be deemed in breach and b) insist to be able to do so.
Dunno the law. Perhaps, perhaps not. But the new DG is absolutely right in essence. No BBC employee should express any political opinion on social media. It’s bloody obvious. Because the frail national consensus that underpins the licence fee - a poll tax, remember - will fall apart if consumers think they are being lectured and criticized by the people they, with their taxes, employ
If you’re that desperate to talk politics on Twitter, set up a new account, use a pseudonym, don’t trade on your BBC status. Then you can have as much free speech as you like
The fact BBC journos refuse, or are too stupid, to understand this, is, I fear, a suicide note for the whole shebang
As I have said previously, there is a bigger elephant in the room than this. Young people don't watch it, old aren't on twitter and certainly don't see the world the way twitter does in terms of how important certain issues are, and for the middle aged the likes of Netflix is super popular and in the modern age is totally weird idea that you have to pay the telly tax to watch footy on Sky.....and it is all totally unenforceable.
And the new DG doesn't see the issue with the telly tax, instead engaging in all this stuff about what employees are banned from doing.
Two different issues. You’re quite right that the BBC licence fee model is doomed anyway. I give it a decade max.
My point is that the BBC as an institution is generating immediate resentment from many sides, by allowing its journalists to spout personal opinions on social media AS bbc journos. It annoys many. Not just English Tories. See the Scot Nats who want the BBC cancelled.
If the bbc Is to have any chance of surviving it has to solve this immediate problem first. So it can get a decent hearing when it pleads for a new funding model in 5-10 years time.
I just don't see what's so hard about many jobs meaning you cannot publicly flaunt your politics. Until the coming jobs crisis at least there have been plenty of jobs where you could do that if it is that important to you. Obviously since people are not automatons even attempted detached and neutral commenting or linking will slip up from time to time, but it doesn't mean it should not be attempted in certain positions and jobs, and it's not an outrage.
Personally I take an amount of professional pride in being able to separate politics from work, so I don't see why others have an impulse that makes that difficult.
Sack him. This isn’t a choice any more. If you work for the BBC, you don’t get a profile on social media, and you don’t express opinions. If you want to do that, create a new profile with a pseudonym or whatever, do not mention your BBC job, and you can say what you like. What’s the problem?
Gary Lineker has done enormous damage to the corporation that pays him millions.
The new director general clearly sees the existential threat to the Beeb. Good for him. But I fear it is too late. The BBC is doomed. Slain by Twitter
The management are going to have to back down or they will be having employees up for disciplinaries every day on this issue. There is no way that a) they be able to not express opinions that could be deemed in breach and b) insist to be able to do so.
Moreover. Newcastle Pride is one of the biggest events in the NE. Had 70 000 in 2019. Are they seriously suggesting an employee cannot take their kids or grandkids to ride the fun fair, watch some X Factor wannabe, or play on bouncy castles on their day off because a "trans issue" may arise? Heck. Are they seriously suggesting they can't just go and get plastered like everyone else?
Sack him. This isn’t a choice any more. If you work for the BBC, you don’t get a profile on social media, and you don’t express opinions. If you want to do that, create a new profile with a pseudonym or whatever, do not mention your BBC job, and you can say what you like. What’s the problem?
Gary Lineker has done enormous damage to the corporation that pays him millions.
The new director general clearly sees the existential threat to the Beeb. Good for him. But I fear it is too late. The BBC is doomed. Slain by Twitter
The management are going to have to back down or they will be having employees up for disciplinaries every day on this issue. There is no way that a) they be able to not express opinions that could be deemed in breach and b) insist to be able to do so.
Dunno the law. Perhaps, perhaps not. But the new DG is absolutely right in essence. No BBC employee should express any political opinion on social media. It’s bloody obvious. Because the frail national consensus that underpins the licence fee - a poll tax, remember - will fall apart if consumers think they are being lectured and criticized by the people they, with their taxes, employ
If you’re that desperate to talk politics on Twitter, set up a new account, use a pseudonym, don’t trade on your BBC status. Then you can have as much free speech as you like
The fact BBC journos refuse, or are too stupid, to understand this, is, I fear, a suicide note for the whole shebang
As I have said previously, there is a bigger elephant in the room than this. Young people don't watch it, old aren't on twitter and certainly don't see the world the way twitter does in terms of how important certain issues are, and for the middle aged the likes of Netflix is super popular and in the modern age is totally weird idea that you have to pay the telly tax to watch footy on Sky.....and it is all totally unenforceable.
And the new DG doesn't see the issue with the telly tax, instead engaging in all this stuff about what employees are banned from doing.
Two different issues. You’re quite right that the BBC licence fee model is doomed anyway. I give it a decade max.
My point is that the BBC as an institution is generating immediate resentment from many sides, by allowing its journalists to spout personal opinions on social media AS bbc journos. It annoys many. Not just English Tories. See the Scot Nats who want the BBC cancelled.
If the bbc Is to have any chance of surviving it has to solve this immediate problem first. So it can get a decent hearing when it pleads for a new funding model in 5-10 years time.
I just don't see what's so hard about many jobs meaning you cannot publicly flaunt your politics. Until the coming jobs crisis at least there have been plenty of jobs where you could do that if it is that important to you. Obviously since people are not automatons even attempted detached and neutral commenting or linking will slip up from time to time, but it doesn't mean it should not be attempted in certain positions and jobs, and it's not an outrage.
Personally I take an amount of professional pride in being able to separate politics from work, so I don't see why others have an impulse that makes that difficult.
Would you consider attendance at a Pride on your day off "flaunting your opinions"?
Sack him. This isn’t a choice any more. If you work for the BBC, you don’t get a profile on social media, and you don’t express opinions. If you want to do that, create a new profile with a pseudonym or whatever, do not mention your BBC job, and you can say what you like. What’s the problem?
Gary Lineker has done enormous damage to the corporation that pays him millions.
The new director general clearly sees the existential threat to the Beeb. Good for him. But I fear it is too late. The BBC is doomed. Slain by Twitter
The management are going to have to back down or they will be having employees up for disciplinaries every day on this issue. There is no way that a) they be able to not express opinions that could be deemed in breach and b) insist to be able to do so.
Dunno the law. Perhaps, perhaps not. But the new DG is absolutely right in essence. No BBC employee should express any political opinion on social media. It’s bloody obvious. Because the frail national consensus that underpins the licence fee - a poll tax, remember - will fall apart if consumers think they are being lectured and criticized by the people they, with their taxes, employ
If you’re that desperate to talk politics on Twitter, set up a new account, use a pseudonym, don’t trade on your BBC status. Then you can have as much free speech as you like
The fact BBC journos refuse, or are too stupid, to understand this, is, I fear, a suicide note for the whole shebang
As I have said previously, there is a bigger elephant in the room than this. Young people don't watch it, old aren't on twitter and certainly don't see the world the way twitter does in terms of how important certain issues are, and for the middle aged the likes of Netflix is super popular and in the modern age is totally weird idea that you have to pay the telly tax to watch footy on Sky.....and it is all totally unenforceable.
And the new DG doesn't see the issue with the telly tax, instead engaging in all this stuff about what employees are banned from doing.
Two different issues. You’re quite right that the BBC licence fee model is doomed anyway. I give it a decade max.
My point is that the BBC as an institution is generating immediate resentment from many sides, by allowing its journalists to spout personal opinions on social media AS bbc journos. It annoys many. Not just English Tories. See the Scot Nats who want the BBC cancelled.
If the bbc Is to have any chance of surviving it has to solve this immediate problem first. So it can get a decent hearing when it pleads for a new funding model in 5-10 years time.
I just don't see what's so hard about many jobs meaning you cannot publicly flaunt your politics. Until the coming jobs crisis at least there have been plenty of jobs where you could do that if it is that important to you. Obviously since people are not automatons even attempted detached and neutral commenting or linking will slip up from time to time, but it doesn't mean it should not be attempted in certain positions and jobs, and it's not an outrage.
Personally I take an amount of professional pride in being able to separate politics from work, so I don't see why others have an impulse that makes that difficult.
Spot on. My father was a senior civil servant. He has never told me how he votes. He lived by the principle that he advised but ministers decided. He is horrified by the leak culture, believing that it weakens good governance. He also believes that some civil servants got too close to New Labour and that was when the rot set in. They came to believe in the project rather than public service.
re; last week’s episode of The Editors, the National Review podcast "The Editors" featuring Trafalgar Group CEO Robert Cahaly:
"We’ll start with his assessment of Texas and Georgia, because this is a pretty easy way to start the process of showing why his arguments don’t hold water. He claims that 2018 wasn’t a good blue year in either state despite the high profile races, because you have to look at the way the other races were. Apparently the fact that the Democrats spent no money and ran a paper candidate for Governor in Texas is irrelevant, but the fact that Beto O’Rourke only lost by under 3% is just down to candidate effects. The same is said about Georgia, where people had a problem with Brian Kemp, and that is why that race was so close. This argument ignores the fact that the Secretary of State race went to a runoff in Georgia, because that’s a pesky fact that hurts the narrative.
Another pesky fact is that Trafalgar didn’t find any evidence that Brian Kemp was unpopular before the election, no no – they had him winning by 12%! What a convenient reimagining of the facts here – I mean, there’s no way they also thought Cruz was perfectly popular until it ruined their narrative, right? Oh, what’s that, they had Cruz winning by 9% a race he only won by 2.6%? Nope, they’re just making shit up to justify why those races were close because they were wrong."
Wanna bet that someone is going to be watching VERY carefully to ensure that priceless historic heirlooms (as well as top-of-the-line plumbing fixtures) do NOT go missing during the transition?
Trumpsky would steal the change from a bind beggars cup - this we know.
So tired of hearing about Corbyn (in the media in general). I wish we could move on from him.
Unfortunately, he and his cult followers aren't going away anytime soon. If he gets kicked from the Labour Party, they will rock up with the likes of XR.
Sack him. This isn’t a choice any more. If you work for the BBC, you don’t get a profile on social media, and you don’t express opinions. If you want to do that, create a new profile with a pseudonym or whatever, do not mention your BBC job, and you can say what you like. What’s the problem?
Gary Lineker has done enormous damage to the corporation that pays him millions.
The new director general clearly sees the existential threat to the Beeb. Good for him. But I fear it is too late. The BBC is doomed. Slain by Twitter
The management are going to have to back down or they will be having employees up for disciplinaries every day on this issue. There is no way that a) they be able to not express opinions that could be deemed in breach and b) insist to be able to do so.
Moreover. Newcastle Pride is one of the biggest events in the NE. Had 70 000 in 2019. Are they seriously suggesting an employee cannot take their kids or grandkids to ride the fun fair, watch some X Factor wannabe, or play on bouncy castles on their day off because a "trans issue" may arise? Heck. Are they seriously suggesting they can't just go and get plastered like everyone else?
Don't worry, no doubt Toby Young's FSU will be along to protest about this any minute now....
The interviewer isn't crazy knowledgeable like the Star Spangled Gamblers people but Paul Krishnamurty is always interesting, he mentions that in terms of numbers nearly all the Betfair bets are on Trump, then there's a small number of people shovelling in large sums of money to match them, and probably giggling.
Running some numbers on the votes cast and votes left based on turnout I stumbled across something that surprised me. The 50-60% turnout figures in US elections you see bandied about is based upon either % of Voting Age Population, or Voting Eligible Population (i.e. the VAP minus those disqualified for one or other reason). If you look at voting turnout in elections by Registered Voter, it is a lot higher: from 82% for Texas (vs 43.4% of VAP), to 90%, 91% and over 92% for NC, NH and WI respectively.
This means that there are a lot more votes still left on the table than I had thought, based on expected turnout of 75% and thinking that related to RV, not VAP/VEP.
PS How can I share an Excel worksheet here - the figures for 2016 RV and votes cast by state are from the US Census Bureau and are not exactly the same as state-reported voting, but I used the Census numbers for both for consistency.
Running some numbers on the votes cast and votes left based on turnout I stumbled across something that surprised me. The 50-60% turnout figures in US elections you see bandied about is based upon either % of Voting Age Population, or Voting Eligible Population (i.e. the VAP minus those disqualified for one or other reason). If you look at voting turnout in elections by Registered Voter, it is a lot higher: from 82% for Texas (vs 43.4% of VAP), to 90%, 91% and over 92% for NC, NH and WI respectively.
This means that there are a lot more votes still left on the table than I had thought, based on expected turnout of 75% and thinking that related to RV, not VAP/VEP.
PS How can I share an Excel worksheet here - the figures for 2016 RV and votes cast by state are from the US Census Bureau and are not exactly the same as state-reported voting, but I used the Census numbers for both for consistency.
Running some numbers on the votes cast and votes left based on turnout I stumbled across something that surprised me. The 50-60% turnout figures in US elections you see bandied about is based upon either % of Voting Age Population, or Voting Eligible Population (i.e. the VAP minus those disqualified for one or other reason). If you look at voting turnout in elections by Registered Voter, it is a lot higher: from 82% for Texas (vs 43.4% of VAP), to 90%, 91% and over 92% for NC, NH and WI respectively.
This means that there are a lot more votes still left on the table than I had thought, based on expected turnout of 75% and thinking that related to RV, not VAP/VEP.
PS How can I share an Excel worksheet here - the figures for 2016 RV and votes cast by state are from the US Census Bureau and are not exactly the same as state-reported voting, but I used the Census numbers for both for consistency.
Running some numbers on the votes cast and votes left based on turnout I stumbled across something that surprised me. The 50-60% turnout figures in US elections you see bandied about is based upon either % of Voting Age Population, or Voting Eligible Population (i.e. the VAP minus those disqualified for one or other reason). If you look at voting turnout in elections by Registered Voter, it is a lot higher: from 82% for Texas (vs 43.4% of VAP), to 90%, 91% and over 92% for NC, NH and WI respectively.
This means that there are a lot more votes still left on the table than I had thought, based on expected turnout of 75% and thinking that related to RV, not VAP/VEP.
PS How can I share an Excel worksheet here - the figures for 2016 RV and votes cast by state are from the US Census Bureau and are not exactly the same as state-reported voting, but I used the Census numbers for both for consistency.
As of 5pm Pac Thursday 10.29 cumulative WA State ballot returns = 2,959,481 > which is 71.5% of current active registration = 4.87m > if final voter turnout = 85% (versus 79% in 2016) then expected final ballots cast = 4,150,000 > since WA VAP = approx 6.2m, expected ballots cast = approx 67% > which IF it pans out would be the highest VAP turnout since 1964 (69%) > by comparison: 2000 = 58% 2004 = 62 2008 = 61% 2012 = 61% 2016 = 61%
One wrinkle out here & in number of other states, is that we now have Same Day Registration, meaning that any eligible citizen who is not registered when they request a ballot, is registered then and their and issued one.
No more voter registration deadline means that a) voter registration count keeps rising right through EDay b) percentage of VAP turnout creeps up
Running some numbers on the votes cast and votes left based on turnout I stumbled across something that surprised me. The 50-60% turnout figures in US elections you see bandied about is based upon either % of Voting Age Population, or Voting Eligible Population (i.e. the VAP minus those disqualified for one or other reason). If you look at voting turnout in elections by Registered Voter, it is a lot higher: from 82% for Texas (vs 43.4% of VAP), to 90%, 91% and over 92% for NC, NH and WI respectively.
This means that there are a lot more votes still left on the table than I had thought, based on expected turnout of 75% and thinking that related to RV, not VAP/VEP.
PS How can I share an Excel worksheet here - the figures for 2016 RV and votes cast by state are from the US Census Bureau and are not exactly the same as state-reported voting, but I used the Census numbers for both for consistency.
As of 5pm Pac Thursday 10.29 cumulative WA State ballot returns = 2,959,481 > which is 71.5% of current active registration = 4.87m > if final voter turnout = 85% (versus 79% in 2016) then expected final ballots cast = 4,150,000 > since WA VAP = approx 6.2m, expected ballots cast = approx 67% > which IF it pans out would be the highest VAP turnout since 1964 (69%) > by comparison: 2000 = 58% 2004 = 62 2008 = 61% 2012 = 61% 2016 = 61%
One wrinkle out here & in number of other states, is that we now have Same Day Registration, meaning that any eligible citizen who is not registered when they request a ballot, is registered then and their and issued one.
No more voter registration deadline means that a) voter registration count keeps rising right through EDay b) percentage of VAP turnout creeps up
Should add that WA State cumulative ballots as of Thur = 88% of total 2016 final ballots cast
Also, assuming 85% turnout, estimated ballot REMAINING to be returned = 1.18 million
All done in the interests of "getting back to normal", of course, just like the return of university students.
The scientifically illiterate idea of "getting back to normal" - while the virus remains as transmissible as ever - has already resulted in something very much like another lockdown over most of the country, and we may well end up with a full lockdown.
All done in the interests of "getting back to normal", of course, just like the return of university students.
The scientifically illiterate idea of "getting back to normal" - while the virus remains as transmissible as ever - has already resulted in something very much like another lockdown over most of the country, and we may well end up with a full lockdown.
So tired of hearing about Corbyn (in the media in general). I wish we could move on from him.
Unfortunately, he and his cult followers aren't going away anytime soon. If he gets kicked from the Labour Party, they will rock up with the likes of XR.
That will cause some tension in the Corbyn family, especially if Piers is arrested for rioting at the counter demo.
Poppies -- I've not seen any on sale round here, and would imagine there are covid-related problems with the usual model of (often elderly) volunteers holding collecting tins. Some remote television presenters wear the metal badges that presumably can be bought online.
Sainsbury's yesterday was selling a lot of poppy-related merchandise but, in a London suburb, from the Scottish organisation.
Running some numbers on the votes cast and votes left based on turnout I stumbled across something that surprised me. The 50-60% turnout figures in US elections you see bandied about is based upon either % of Voting Age Population, or Voting Eligible Population (i.e. the VAP minus those disqualified for one or other reason). If you look at voting turnout in elections by Registered Voter, it is a lot higher: from 82% for Texas (vs 43.4% of VAP), to 90%, 91% and over 92% for NC, NH and WI respectively.
This means that there are a lot more votes still left on the table than I had thought, based on expected turnout of 75% and thinking that related to RV, not VAP/VEP.
PS How can I share an Excel worksheet here - the figures for 2016 RV and votes cast by state are from the US Census Bureau and are not exactly the same as state-reported voting, but I used the Census numbers for both for consistency.
As of 5pm Pac Thursday 10.29 cumulative WA State ballot returns = 2,959,481 > which is 71.5% of current active registration = 4.87m > if final voter turnout = 85% (versus 79% in 2016) then expected final ballots cast = 4,150,000 > since WA VAP = approx 6.2m, expected ballots cast = approx 67% > which IF it pans out would be the highest VAP turnout since 1964 (69%) > by comparison: 2000 = 58% 2004 = 62 2008 = 61% 2012 = 61% 2016 = 61%
One wrinkle out here & in number of other states, is that we now have Same Day Registration, meaning that any eligible citizen who is not registered when they request a ballot, is registered then and their and issued one.
No more voter registration deadline means that a) voter registration count keeps rising right through EDay b) percentage of VAP turnout creeps up
So basically 1/3 of Americans are not in fact registered to vote for a variety of reasons, some legal (eg ex convicts) some not (blatant suppression)?
Is lockdown denialism in transition? There seems to be more acceptance that the SAGE modelling is broadly correct, and the more sophisticated critics are urging that we pay more heed to non-Covid illness rather than denouncing lockdowns out-of-hand, let alone masks.
Is lockdown denialism in transition? There seems to be more acceptance that the SAGE modelling is broadly correct, and the more sophisticated critics are urging that we pay more heed to non-Covid illness rather than denouncing lockdowns out-of-hand, let alone masks.
At least, that is my impression.
Difficult to do if hospitals are full of Covid patients.
Running some numbers on the votes cast and votes left based on turnout I stumbled across something that surprised me. The 50-60% turnout figures in US elections you see bandied about is based upon either % of Voting Age Population, or Voting Eligible Population (i.e. the VAP minus those disqualified for one or other reason). If you look at voting turnout in elections by Registered Voter, it is a lot higher: from 82% for Texas (vs 43.4% of VAP), to 90%, 91% and over 92% for NC, NH and WI respectively.
This means that there are a lot more votes still left on the table than I had thought, based on expected turnout of 75% and thinking that related to RV, not VAP/VEP.
PS How can I share an Excel worksheet here - the figures for 2016 RV and votes cast by state are from the US Census Bureau and are not exactly the same as state-reported voting, but I used the Census numbers for both for consistency.
It's why I don't bet on turnout as it's an absolute balls ache to work out what the bookies will be settling on and what past figures are.
Sack him. This isn’t a choice any more. If you work for the BBC, you don’t get a profile on social media, and you don’t express opinions. If you want to do that, create a new profile with a pseudonym or whatever, do not mention your BBC job, and you can say what you like. What’s the problem?
Gary Lineker has done enormous damage to the corporation that pays him millions.
The new director general clearly sees the existential threat to the Beeb. Good for him. But I fear it is too late. The BBC is doomed. Slain by Twitter
The management are going to have to back down or they will be having employees up for disciplinaries every day on this issue. There is no way that a) they be able to not express opinions that could be deemed in breach and b) insist to be able to do so.
Dunno the law. Perhaps, perhaps not. But the new DG is absolutely right in essence. No BBC employee should express any political opinion on social media. It’s bloody obvious. Because the frail national consensus that underpins the licence fee - a poll tax, remember - will fall apart if consumers think they are being lectured and criticized by the people they, with their taxes, employ
If you’re that desperate to talk politics on Twitter, set up a new account, use a pseudonym, don’t trade on your BBC status. Then you can have as much free speech as you like
The fact BBC journos refuse, or are too stupid, to understand this, is, I fear, a suicide note for the whole shebang
As I have said previously, there is a bigger elephant in the room than this. Young people don't watch it, old aren't on twitter and certainly don't see the world the way twitter does in terms of how important certain issues are, and for the middle aged the likes of Netflix is super popular and in the modern age is totally weird idea that you have to pay the telly tax to watch footy on Sky.....and it is all totally unenforceable.
And the new DG doesn't see the issue with the telly tax, instead engaging in all this stuff about what employees are banned from doing.
Two different issues. You’re quite right that the BBC licence fee model is doomed anyway. I give it a decade max.
My point is that the BBC as an institution is generating immediate resentment from many sides, by allowing its journalists to spout personal opinions on social media AS bbc journos. It annoys many. Not just English Tories. See the Scot Nats who want the BBC cancelled.
If the bbc Is to have any chance of surviving it has to solve this immediate problem first. So it can get a decent hearing when it pleads for a new funding model in 5-10 years time.
I just don't see what's so hard about many jobs meaning you cannot publicly flaunt your politics. Until the coming jobs crisis at least there have been plenty of jobs where you could do that if it is that important to you. Obviously since people are not automatons even attempted detached and neutral commenting or linking will slip up from time to time, but it doesn't mean it should not be attempted in certain positions and jobs, and it's not an outrage.
Personally I take an amount of professional pride in being able to separate politics from work, so I don't see why others have an impulse that makes that difficult.
Would you consider attendance at a Pride on your day off "flaunting your opinions"?
No, but I was referring to people pushing their politics on Twitter.
Comments
Gary Lineker has done enormous damage to the corporation that pays him millions.
The new director general clearly sees the existential threat to the Beeb. Good for him. But I fear it is too late. The BBC is doomed. Slain by Twitter
South and West trending Dem. North and East trending Rep.
South and West have fast growing populations.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1320794982060609538?s=19
https://twitter.com/TonePolicing/status/1321924465572388865?s=20
Learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
Where many folks would think nothing of driving (pre-COVID) 30 miles there AND back for Sunday brunch.
Texas has the most counties of any US state, and Georgia is second. I don't know why.
Is the UK suffering from "too-late poppy syndrome"?
If you’re that desperate to talk politics on Twitter, set up a new account, use a pseudonym, don’t trade on your BBC status. Then you can have as much free speech as you like
The fact BBC journos refuse, or are too stupid, to understand this, is, I fear, a suicide note for the whole shebang
And the new DG doesn't see the issue with the telly tax, instead engaging in all this stuff about what employees are banned from doing.
https://leantossup.ca/trafalgar-rebellion-lies/
My point is that the BBC as an institution is generating immediate resentment from many sides, by allowing its journalists to spout personal opinions on social media AS bbc journos. It annoys many. Not just English Tories. See the Scot Nats who want the BBC cancelled.
If the bbc Is to have any chance of surviving it has to solve this immediate problem first. So it can get a decent hearing when it pleads for a new funding model in 5-10 years time.
The Beeboids being on Twitter simply let's them share their views and those views will still be influencing what they produce for the Beeb whether they're on Twitter or not.
But the TV tax is the real issue. The Beeb being a pale imitation of Netflix is the problem.
My children primarily watch YouTube, Netflix and Disney. They watch more Channel 5 (Peppa Pig) than BBC. Whole generations of people are finding they have nothing to watch on the BBC and yet are taxed to pay for it. And Twitter is a meaningless distraction compared to that.
I used to love Match of the Day but haven't watched it now in many years, not because of anything Linekar said on Twitter but as I can get all the highlights on YouTube hours before they appear on Match of the Day so what's the point of that as we get into the middle of the twenty first century?
Personally I take an amount of professional pride in being able to separate politics from work, so I don't see why others have an impulse that makes that difficult.
Heck. Are they seriously suggesting they can't just go and get plastered like everyone else?
It's a known fact that Paris is the one city in the world where people don't live in the suburbs and drive in to work.
"We’ll start with his assessment of Texas and Georgia, because this is a pretty easy way to start the process of showing why his arguments don’t hold water. He claims that 2018 wasn’t a good blue year in either state despite the high profile races, because you have to look at the way the other races were. Apparently the fact that the Democrats spent no money and ran a paper candidate for Governor in Texas is irrelevant, but the fact that Beto O’Rourke only lost by under 3% is just down to candidate effects. The same is said about Georgia, where people had a problem with Brian Kemp, and that is why that race was so close. This argument ignores the fact that the Secretary of State race went to a runoff in Georgia, because that’s a pesky fact that hurts the narrative.
Another pesky fact is that Trafalgar didn’t find any evidence that Brian Kemp was unpopular before the election, no no – they had him winning by 12%! What a convenient reimagining of the facts here – I mean, there’s no way they also thought Cruz was perfectly popular until it ruined their narrative, right? Oh, what’s that, they had Cruz winning by 9% a race he only won by 2.6%? Nope, they’re just making shit up to justify why those races were close because they were wrong."
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1321960421025341442?s=21
Trumpsky would steal the change from a bind beggars cup - this we know.
https://twitter.com/TimBlotzFOX9/status/1321945866903736325
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1mnxelgynkPJX
The interviewer isn't crazy knowledgeable like the Star Spangled Gamblers people but Paul Krishnamurty is always interesting, he mentions that in terms of numbers nearly all the Betfair bets are on Trump, then there's a small number of people shovelling in large sums of money to match them, and probably giggling.
Research from the university suggests that between 8% and 17% of newly detected infection clusters can be linked to the scheme.
By Alexa Phillips"
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-eat-out-to-help-out-accelerated-second-wave-of-covid-19-study-says-12118285
Running some numbers on the votes cast and votes left based on turnout I stumbled across something that surprised me. The 50-60% turnout figures in US elections you see bandied about is based upon either % of Voting Age Population, or Voting Eligible Population (i.e. the VAP minus those disqualified for one or other reason). If you look at voting turnout in elections by Registered Voter, it is a lot higher: from 82% for Texas (vs 43.4% of VAP), to 90%, 91% and over 92% for NC, NH and WI respectively.
This means that there are a lot more votes still left on the table than I had thought, based on expected turnout of 75% and thinking that related to RV, not VAP/VEP.
PS How can I share an Excel worksheet here - the figures for 2016 RV and votes cast by state are from the US Census Bureau and are not exactly the same as state-reported voting, but I used the Census numbers for both for consistency.
> which is 71.5% of current active registration = 4.87m
> if final voter turnout = 85% (versus 79% in 2016) then expected final ballots cast = 4,150,000
> since WA VAP = approx 6.2m, expected ballots cast = approx 67%
> which IF it pans out would be the highest VAP turnout since 1964 (69%)
> by comparison: 2000 = 58% 2004 = 62 2008 = 61% 2012 = 61% 2016 = 61%
One wrinkle out here & in number of other states, is that we now have Same Day Registration, meaning that any eligible citizen who is not registered when they request a ballot, is registered then and their and issued one.
No more voter registration deadline means that
a) voter registration count keeps rising right through EDay
b) percentage of VAP turnout creeps up
It will become law in 12 months time.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/30/new-zealand-votes-to-legalise-euthanasia-but-against-legalising-cannabis-in-referendum
Also, assuming 85% turnout, estimated ballot REMAINING to be returned = 1.18 million
SO in NZ you can (or soon can) die but NOT get high. Personally would prefer other way around!
The scientifically illiterate idea of "getting back to normal" - while the virus remains as transmissible as ever - has already resulted in something very much like another lockdown over most of the country, and we may well end up with a full lockdown.
Sainsbury's yesterday was selling a lot of poppy-related merchandise but, in a London suburb, from the Scottish organisation.
#notafunctioningdemocracy
At least, that is my impression.
https://twitter.com/HarrisVotes/status/1320701409076142083
been given the Ossoff treatment.
Switch to "know someone who has had covid"